Thompson v. Brasscraft Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-01417 (SRN/LIB) |
| Parties | Walt THOMPSON and Kristine Thompson, Plaintiffs, v. BRASSCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Mark J. Peschel, Eastlund Hutchinson Ltd., 4200 County Road 42 West, Savage, MN 55378-4048, for Plaintiffs.
Christopher W. Fowlkes and Matthew Joseph Merz Smaron, Bowman and Brooke LLP, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 20] filed by Defendant Brasscraft Manufacturing Company ("Brasscraft"). Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
The facts of this case are straightforward and undisputed. Brasscraft manufactures water supply lines, which connect household toilets to a water source. During construction of Plaintiffs’ house, Plaintiff Walt Thompson, a licensed plumber, installed a water supply line manufactured by Brasscraft in one of the Thompsons’ three bathrooms.1 (Decl. of Walt Thompson ("Thompson Decl.") [Doc. No. 29], at ¶¶ 2-3.) The installation process required only a wrench and Thompson's hands, and took no more than five minutes. (Id. ¶ 5.) Construction of the Thompsons’ house was completed in 2003; fifteen years later, a plastic coupling nut on the water supply line failed, causing significant water damage. (Id. ¶ 2.)
The Thompsons filed this lawsuit, asserting negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty claims against Brasscraft. (Compl. [Doc. No. 1-1].) Brasscraft now moves for summary judgment, asserting that the statute of repose in Minnesota Statutes § 541.051 bars the Thompsons’ claims.
Summary judgment is appropriate if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A fact is ‘material’ if it may affect the outcome of the lawsuit." TCF Nat'l Bank v. Mkt. Intelligence, Inc. , 812 F.3d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 2016). And a factual dispute is "genuine" only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Although the moving party bears the burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of fact, the party opposing summary judgment may not "rest on mere allegations or denials but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial." Krenik v. Cty. of Le Sueur , 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Moreover, summary judgment is properly entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
Where, as here, the Court sits in diversity, the Court must apply Minnesota law. In resolving substantive issues of state law, the Court is bound by the holdings of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Integrity Floorcovering, Inc. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC , 521 F.3d 914, 917 (8th Cir. 2008). "If the Minnesota Supreme Court has not spoken on a particular issue," the Court "must attempt to predict how the Minnesota Supreme Court would decide [that] issue and ‘may consider relevant state precedent, analogous decisions, considered dicta ... and any other reliable data.’ " Id. (citation omitted).
Under Minnesota Statutes § 541.051, "no action by any person in contract, tort, or otherwise to recover damages for any injury to property ... arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, shall be brought against any person ... furnishing the ... materials ... of the improvement to real property ... more than two years after the cause of action accrues, ... nor in any event shall such a cause of action accrue more than ten years after substantial completion of the construction." Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a). Section 541.051 thus imposes both a statute of limitations and a statute of repose on claims arising out of defective improvements to real property. The statute's limitations on such claims do not apply, however, "to the manufacturer ... of any equipment or machinery installed upon real property." Id. § 541.051, subd. 1(e).
Here, Brasscraft invokes § 541.051 cause of action accrued more than ten years after the substantial completion of the construction of their house. Thus, if the statute of repose applies, the Thompsons’ claims are barred. In determining whether the statute of repose applies, the Court must first examine whether Brasscraft's water supply line is an "improvement to real property." If it is, the Court must then consider whether the supply line qualifies as "equipment" excepted from the statute of repose under subdivision 1(e).
The Court finds that the water supply line is an "improvement to real property" under § 541.051. The Minnesota Supreme Court has defined an improvement to real property to mean "[1] a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that [2] enhances its capital value and that [3] involves the expenditure of labor or money and is [4] designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Aquila Inc. , 718 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted). Minnesota courts "use a common sense approach when determining whether something is an improvement to real property" under the statute. Allianz Ins. Co. v. PM Servs. of Eden Prairie, Inc. , 691 N.W.2d 79, 83 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (citation omitted). Brasscraft bears the burden of proving that the water supply line is an improvement to real property. See State Farm Fire & Cas. , 718 N.W.2d at 885.
On the undisputed facts in this record, the Court finds that the water supply line satisfies each of these four factors. First, the water supply line qualifies as a permanent addition to or betterment of real property. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that in order to satisfy this factor, an improvement "must be integral to and incorporated into the building or structure on the property."
Ritter v. Abbey-Etna Mach. Co. , 483 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). Courts have found products such as ventilation fans, garage door openers, smoke detectors, and light fixtures to be permanent additions to real property. See Integrity Floorcovering, Inc. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC , 521 F.3d 914, 918 (8th Cir. 2008) (bathroom ventilation fan); Henry v. Raynor Mfg. Co. , 753 F. Supp. 278, 281 (D. Minn. 1990) (garage door opener); Patton v. Yarrington , 472 N.W.2d 157, 160 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (hardwired smoke detectors); Citizens Sec. Mut. Ins. Co. of Red Wing v. Gen. Elec. Corp. , 394 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (light fixtures). The Thompsons argue that the foregoing cases are distinguishable because the water supply line could be easily removed, and its installation did not require Walt Thompson to make holes in any walls or "hardwire" the supply line into the plumbing system. The Thompsons analogize the supply line to a lightbulb, which—although an important part of any lighting system—is readily removable.
It is true that installing the water supply line took Thompson only five minutes, and that it could be easily removed. Nevertheless, the water supply line is an integral part of the bathroom's plumbing system. It connects the Thompsons’ toilet to the building's water supply; without it, the toilet could not function. Further, it is undisputed that the water supply line is required by Minnesota's building codes. Cf. Integrity Floorcovering, Inc. , 521 F.3d at 918 (). And, unlike a lightbulb, the water supply line is not designed to be periodically replaced—indeed, the supply line at the heart of this case lasted fifteen years. Because the supply line is an integral part of the bathroom's plumbing system which is not designed to be regularly replaced, the Court finds that it qualifies as a permanent addition to the property. Cf. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. v. BendTec, Inc. , 822 F.3d 420, 424 (8th Cir. 2016) (); Citizens Sec. Mut. Ins. Co. of Red Wing v. Gen. Elec. Corp. , 394 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) ().
The second factor is whether the alleged improvement enhances the capital value of the property. It is true, as the Thompsons argue, that the water supply line is cheap and easily installed, and a purchaser likely would not decline to buy a house merely because a supply line is absent. But it is indisputable that a house with a functioning toilet is more useful and valuable than a house without one. Applying the "common-sense" approach required by Minnesota law, the Court finds that the water supply line satisfies this factor....
To continue reading
Request your trial