Category Archives: Minnesota

Minnesota Clarifies the “Machinery/Equipment” Exception to the Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property and Adopts Test for Establishing a Post-Sale Duty to Warn


This entry was posted by on .

In a recent decision, Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 2018 Minn. LEXIS 236, the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed two important legal questions: (1) did the “machinery and equipment” exception to Minnesota’s statute of repose for improvements to real property allow the plaintiff to bring claims against the manufacturer of a component part used in a home’s heat-recovery ventilator; and (2) did the defendant have a post-sale duty to warn the plaintiff? In answering the first question, the court clarified the meaning of the term “machinery” as used in Minnesota’s statute of repose. In answering the second question, the court adopted a test to apply to determine the circumstances under which a defendant in a product’s chain of distribution has a post-sale duty to warn. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Minnesota, Products Liability, Statute of Repose, Uncategorized and tagged , , .

In Minnesota, a Tenant may, Depending on the Language of the Lease, be Liable to the Landlord for Property Damage to the Tenant’s Apartment but not for Damage to the Rest of the Building


This entry was posted by on .

In Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua, et al., 875 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 2016), the Supreme Court of Minnesota, applying the factors the court first articulated in RAM Mutual Insurance Company v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012), analyzed whether the parties to an apartment lease reasonably expected that the tenants would be liable in subrogation for fire damage caused by the tenants’ negligence. The Melrose Gates court held that, based on the language of the lease, the type of insurance the parties purchased, and the fact that the building was a multi-unit structure, the parties intended that the tenants would be responsible for damage to their leased unit but not for damage to other property. Thus, while the landlord’s insurer could recover the amount it paid to repair the damage to the tenants’ unit, it could not recover the amount it paid to repair other units or common areas of the building.

Continue reading

This entry was posted in Landlord-Tenant, Minnesota, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine and tagged , .