§
Subdivision 1.Findings and purpose.
The legislature finds that it is in the interest of the general public, particularly those persons who may bring claims regarding materials containing asbestos and those against whom the claims may be brought, to set a specific date by which building owners must bring a cause of action for removal or other abatement costs associated with the presence of asbestos in their building. By enactment of this statute of limitations the legislature does not imply that suits would otherwise be barred by an existing limitations period.
§
Subd. 2.Limitation on certain asbestos actions.
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an action to recover for (1) removal of asbestos or materials containing asbestos from a building, (2) other measures taken to locate, correct, or ameliorate any problem related to asbestos in a building, or (3) reimbursement for removal, correction, or amelioration of an asbestos problem that would otherwise be barred before July 1, 1990, as a result of expiration of the applicable period of limitation, is revived or extended. An asbestos action revived or extended under this subdivision may be begun before July 1, 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 197 v. W.R. Grace & Co., 752 F. Supp. 286 (D. Minnesota 1990).
· cites it 16× “051; (2) plaintiffs time-barred action was not revived by Minn.Stat. § 541.22 because that statute is unconstitutional; (3) plaintiffs claims are preempted by federal regulation; (4) plaintiffs tort claims are barred by Superwood Corp.”
Metro. Fed. Bank of Iowa v. W.R. Grace & Co., 793 F. Supp. 205 (D. Minnesota 1992).
· cites it 6× “In the alternative, plaintiffs contend that even under section 541.051, its claim is not barred because it could not have discovered its injury more than two years ago, and that defendants’ fraudulent concealment tolls the ten-year limitation.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 622 v. Keene Corp., 495 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “051 (1982), and the claims are not revived by Minn.Stat. § 541.22 (1988). If the claims are timely under section 541.”
Larson v. Babcock & Wilcox, 525 N.W.2d 589 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “at 292 (citing Minn.Stat. § 541.22, subd. 2). Here, however, there is no indication that the legislature intended retroactive application.”
Appletree Square I Ltd. P'ship v. O'Connor & Hannan, 575 N.W.2d 102 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “In bringing the asbestos action, O’Connor & Hannan relied on Minn.Stat. § 541.22, subd. 2 (1996), which extends the statute of limitations period to June 30, 1990, in an otherwise time-barred asbestos-related suit.”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.22(1) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 541.22(2) — 1 case
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.