Bethesda Lutheran Ch. v. Twin City Const

30 Citing cases

  1. In re Dynaco Corporation

    200 B.R. 750 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1996)   Cited 3 times
    Recognizing that a majority of jurisdictions had rejected the repair tolling doctrine and predicting that New Hampshire courts would do the same

    Consequently, the AgriStor court of necessity did not consider what circumstances, if any, might justify estoppel or tolling of the time period. The AgriStor court referenced Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co., 356 N.W.2d 344 (Minn.App. 1984), review denied (1985), in which the court held that a general contractor, who had made numerous promises and attempts to repair the building owner's roof over the applicable six-year period of the statute of limitations, and who had immediately ceased all attempts to repair the roof after the limitations period had passed, was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to the owner's subsequent lawsuit. The general contractor also gave the building owner, as part of its many promises to repair the roof, a two-year warranty shortly after the leakage problem began.

  2. Bottum v. Jundt

    No. A09-797 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    To invoke this doctrine plaintiff must show that defendant made representations or inducements upon which plaintiff reasonably relied that will cause plaintiff harm if estoppel is not applied." BethesdaLutheran Church v. Twin City Const. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Feb. 5, 1985).

  3. HYDRA-MAC, INC. v. ONAN CORP

    430 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 11 times
    Holding a disclaimer of warranties does not preclude an action for fraud

    Northern Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 277 N.W.2d 408, 410 (Minn. 1979); Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), pet for rev. denied (Minn. February 5, 1985).

  4. Guinness Import Co. v. Mark VII Distributors, Inc.

    153 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 1998)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that, when distribution relationship ended, new importer did not act wrongfully by dealing with others

    1995). To prevail on the claim of equitable estoppel, Mark VII must show that Guinness made representations or inducements upon which Mark VII reasonably relied that will cause Mark VII harm if estoppel is not applied. Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Mark VII has not established the existence of any promises made by Guinness which were intended to induce reliance by Mark VII. The expansion of Mark VII's business in order to distribute DG products was undertaken in reliance upon the distribution agreement with Labatt. Since Labatt supplied DG products to Mark VII prior to Labatt's termination of the distribution agreement, Mark VII had never relied on Guinness to supply the product.

  5. Gfroerer v. Menard, Inc.

    20-cv-00812 (SRN/KMM) (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2021)

    ” Park v. Kim, No. C9-97-1916, 1998 WL 202775, at *5 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 28, 1998) (citing Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 348 (Minn. App.1984)).

  6. Guinness Import Co. v. Mark VII Distributors, Inc.

    971 F. Supp. 401 (D. Minn. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    To invoke this doctrine [Mark VII] must show that [Guinness] made representations or inducements upon which [Mark VII] reasonably relied that will cause [Mark VII] harm if estoppel is not applied." Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Mark VII's equitable estoppel argument relies on its belief that Guinness violated the statutory requirements of the Minnesota Beer Brewers and Wholesalers Act.

  7. Agristor Leasing v. Kramer

    640 F. Supp. 187 (D. Minn. 1986)   Cited 4 times
    In Agristor Leasing, the court refused to toll the statute of limitations on fraudulent concealment grounds solely because the plaintiff did not produce "any evidence which shows that the third-party defendants took affirmative action to conceal any defects."

    Since the Harvestore was installed June 26, 1979 and the Kramers' third-party complaint was not filed until October 8, 1984, their breach of warranty claims appears to be barred by this section. The Kramers, in response, do not argue the future performance exception in the statute; rather, they rely on Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co., 356 N.W.2d 344 (Minn.App. 1984), to contend that the limitations period is tolled while the third-party defendants attempted to make repairs. Bethesda Lutheran is distinguishable on its facts, however.

  8. Mason v. Spiegel, Inc.

    610 F. Supp. 401 (D. Minn. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    Under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-17, plaintiff's claims were not time-barred until August 4, 1983, three months after the Minnesota suit was filed. Equitable estoppel can be invoked to prevent a party from taking unconscionable advantage of his or her actions. Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr., 356 N.W.2d 344 (Minn.App. 1984). To rely on this doctrine, plaintiff must show that defendant made representations or inducements upon which plaintiff reasonably relied that will cause plaintiff harm if estoppel is not found.

  9. Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co.

    402 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 1987)   Cited 19 times
    Treating fireplace as an "improvement"

    In Jack v. Applebaum's Food Mkts., Inc., 280 Minn. 247, 250 n. 1, 158 N.W.2d 857, 859 n. 1 (1968), this court observed that the legislature enacted Minn.Stat. § 541.051 as "a statute of limitations which terminated indemnity rights * * * unless an action seeking indemnity is brought within 2 years after the hazard is discovered." Id. (emphasis added); see also Continental Grain Co. v. Fegles Constr. Co., 480 F.2d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 1973) (defective condition must be discovered before statute of limitations begins to run); Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 352 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) ("Section 541.051 provides that actions, including actions for contribution and indemnity, must be commenced within two years after discovery of the defect * * *.") Section 541.051, subd. 1, bars actions for contribution or indemnity commenced more than two years after the discovery of the defective and unsafe condition.

  10. Lake v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll.

    A17-1523 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 21, 2018)

    "Generally, damages need not be proved with absolute certainty nor with mathematical precision." Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344, 348 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Feb. 5, 1985).