Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Kirk, Judge
Appellant-insurer challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of its product-liability, breach-of-warranty, and post-sale duty-to-warn claims against respondent-manufacturer, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that its claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose because the heat-recovery ventilator (HRV) is not “equipment or machinery’ installed upon real property under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(e) (2016), the exception to the statute of repose. Because the HRV satisfies the plain and ordinary meaning of “equipment or machinery” under subdivision…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Amaral v. Saint Cloud HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Thompson v. Brasscraft Manufacturing CompanyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2021