MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Carl Bolander & Sons LLC

Background

MCI Communications, Inc. and MCImetro Access Transmission Services Corp. sued Carl Bolander & Sons LLC over damage to two fiber-optic telecommunications cables. The cables were cut on April 14, 2015, while Maverick Cutting & Breaking LLC, a subcontractor hired and directed by Bolander, was sawcutting pavement during a St. Paul bridge-replacement project.

MCI filed the action against Bolander on October 22, 2018. It asserted claims for trespass, negligence, statutory liability as an excavator under Minnesota Statutes section 216D.06, and breach of contract based on MCI’s alleged status as an intended beneficiary of a contract between Bolander and the general contractor.

Bolander’s Argument

Bolander moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Bolander argued that Minnesota Statutes section 541.051 barred the entire action because MCI filed it more than three years after the cables were cut, while that statute provides a two-year limitations period for actions involving injury arising from a defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that Maverick’s pavement removal qualified as an “improvement to real property” under section 541.051. The bridge-replacement project as a whole was an improvement because it involved a permanent addition to real property, increased the property’s usefulness or value, required labor and money, and involved more than ordinary repairs. The pavement removal was also an integral part of that larger construction process.

The court nevertheless held that section 541.051 did not apply. Minnesota law requires the injury to arise from a defective and unsafe condition of the improvement. MCI did not allege that a problem with the pavement caused the cables to be cut, or that the cutting created a condition of the pavement or other property that later caused the injury. Instead, MCI alleged that the injury resulted directly from the allegedly negligent manner in which Maverick operated the sawcutter.

The court distinguished injuries caused by a defective condition of an improvement from injuries caused by negligent construction activity. It noted that Minnesota precedent had not yet extended section 541.051 to cover negligent construction activities that do not produce a defective or unsafe condition. The court also acknowledged that the Minnesota Supreme Court might interpret the statute more broadly in the future, but concluded that it had not done so.

Disposition

The court denied Bolander’s Motion to Dismiss. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of MCI’s trespass, negligence, statutory-liability, or contract claims.