1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 658 N.W.2d
  5. 658 N.W.2d 917 (2003)
 

VLAHOS v. R & I CONST. OF BLOOMINGTON

No. C7-02-1428.

658 N.W.2d 917 (2003)

Dean P. VLAHOS, et al., Appellants, v. R & I CONSTRUCTION OF BLOOMINGTON, INC., f/k/a Robert Waade & Associates, Inc., et al., Respondents, John DOE, et al., Defendants, and R & I Construction Of Bloomington, Inc., f/k/a Robert Waade & Associates, Inc., et al., third party plaintiffs, Respondents, v. Quality Insulation, Inc., third party defendant, Respondent, Intex Insulating Co., Inc., Third Party Defendant, Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., third party defendant, Respondent, Tappe Construction Co., third party defendant, Respondent, Donnelly Brothers Construction Company, Inc., third party defendant, Respondent, Collins Electrical Construction Co., third party defendant, Respondent, Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., Third Party Defendant.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

April 9, 2003.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert R. Weinstine, John C. Holper, Karl E. Robinson, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., St. Paul, for appellants.

Robert W. Kettering, Jr., Anton J. Van der Merwe, Douglas D. McGhee, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, PA, Minneapolis, for respondents R & I Construction of Bloomington et al.

Michael R. Moline, Conley & Borgeson, St. Paul, for respondent Quality Insulation.

John E. Varpness, Gislason, Martin & Varpness, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning.

Michael D. Carr, Fitch, Johnson, Larson, Walsh & Held, P.A., Minneapolis, Bruce A. Boeder, Lambert & Boeder, Wayzata, Michael D. Barrett, Cousineau, McGuire & Anderson, Minneapolis, for respondent Tappe Construction.

Peter M. Waldeck, Timothy W. Waldeck, Waldeck & Lind, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent Donnelly Brothers Construction.

Jocelyn L. Knoll, Fabyanske, Westra & Hart, Minneapolis, for respondent Collins Electrical Construction.

Considered and decided by SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge, WILLIS, Judge, and ANDERSON, Judge.

OPINION

SCHUMACHER, J.

Appellants Dean and Michelle Vlahos argue that the district court erred by granting respondents' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Vlahos's lawsuit as barred by the applicable statute of limitations and as not alleging "major construction defects" as defined by statute. We affirm.

FACTS

On or about June 1, 1990, respondent R & I Construction of Bloomington...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases