§
Subdivision 1.Definition.
As used in sections 337.01 to 337.05 the following terms have the meanings assigned to them.
§
Subd. 2.Building and construction contract.
"Building and construction contract" means a contract for the design, construction, alteration, improvement, repair or maintenance of real property, highways, roads or bridges. The term does not include contracts for the maintenance or repair of machinery, equipment or other such devices used as part of a manufacturing, converting or other production process, including electric, gas, steam, and telephone utility equipment used for production, transmission, or distribution purposes.
§
Subd. 3.Indemnification agreement.
"Indemnification agreement" means an agreement by the promisor to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the promisee against liability or claims of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or out of physical damage to tangible or real property.
§
Subd. 4.Promisee.
"Promisee" includes that party's independent contractors, agents, employees or indemnitees.
Notes of Decisions
Target Corp. v. All Jersey Janitorial Serv., Inc., 916 F. Supp. 2d 909 (D. Minn. 2013).
· cites it 7× “” Minn.Stat. § 337.01, subd. 2 (2012). Target argues that the Agreement, which is a contract for housekeeping services, is not a “building and construction contract” and therefore Minnesota’s anti-indemnity statute is not applicable.”
Holmes v. Watson-Forsberg Co., 488 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “1 6 provides: Sections 337.01 to 337.05 do not affect the validity of agreements whereby a promisor agrees to provide specific insurance coverage for the benefit of others.”
ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Swenson, 276 F.R.D. 278 (D. Minn. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. §§ 337.01, subd. 2, 337.02. However, the cited provisions are only applicable to contracts for improvements which are improvements to real property.”
Seifert v. Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, 505 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
“05 (1984) (sections 337.01 to 337.05 do not affect validity of agreements where promisor provides insurance coverage for others’ benefit).”
Bunia v. Knight Ridder, 544 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 337.01 -.0fi (1994). Under Minn.”
Fossum v. Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co., 372 N.W.2d 415 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 337.01 et seq. provides that indemnification agreements in building and construction contracts executed on or after May 1, 1984 are unenforceable except to the extent of the prom-isor’s own negligence.”
Katzner v. Kelleher Constr., 535 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
““Sections 337.01 to 337.05 do not affect the validity of agreements whereby a promisor agrees to provide specific insurance coverage for the benefit of others.”
Lowell Tietz v. United Rentals (North Am.), Inc., Gen. Equip. Co., No. A13-2284 (Minn. Ct. App. July 21, 2014).
· cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 337.01 , subd. 2 (2012). The court is presented with two separate agreements in this case: an oral contract between a nonparty homeowner and appellant for the construction of a residential deck, and a written contract between appellant and respondent for the rental…”
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta, No. A14-3 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2014).
· cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 337.01 , subd. 2 (2012). Because the definition is unambiguous, we do not engage in statutory construction; we apply the plain meaning of the statutory language.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.