Miller v. Lankow
801 N.W.2d 120
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Miller bought a home in which moisture intrusion and mold remediation had been done by DCI, TSC, and Donnelly Brothers.
- After moving in, Miller found additional moisture intrusion and began repairs about 18 months after notifying the respondents.
- The district court sanctioned spoliation by excluding Miller’s expert evidence and granted summary judgment to respondents and third-party defendants.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- Lankow disclosed the moisture issues and remediation in a 2004 sale; IHSC testing and multiple contractors’ reports were produced with closing documents.
- Miller notified respondents of renewed moisture in 2005; inspections occurred, and remediation work continued into 2007, including stucco removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of spoliation notice | Miller contends notice was sufficient under totality of circumstances. | Respondents maintain notice was insufficient to sanction spoliation. | Remand to assess preservation duty and notice under totality of circumstances. |
| Sanction for spoliation excluding expert evidence | Miller argues sanctions were improper or too draconian. | Respondents contend exclusion of expert evidence was appropriate. | Reversed and remanded to determine appropriate sanctions based on preservation duties. |
| Timeliness of the disclosure statute claim | Miller challenges the district court’s reliance on § 513.57 for time-bar. | Respondents seek dismissal under the statute of limitations rationale. | Not properly before the court; declined to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard for spoliation sanctions)
- Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1990) (duty to preserve evidence; preservation precedes sanctions)
- Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co., 587 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. App. 1998) (notice of spoliation must convey breach or claim)
- Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994) (three-factor framework for sanctions: fault, prejudice, and lesser sanctions)
- Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001) (notice may excuse destruction when noncustodial party has knowledge and does not act)