## Facts

- Homeowners built a residence in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, with two heat-recovery ventilators (HRVs) incorporated into the home’s ventilation system.
- Each HRV was hung from basement ceiling joists and connected to the home by metal ductwork, condensation drains, low-voltage control wiring to a wall-mounted humidity control, and a dedicated electrical outlet on its own breaker.
- A component manufacturer supplied the electric motor used in the HRVs; another entity assembled and distributed the finished HRVs (including units branded for another company).
- About 16 years after installation, a fire originated in one HRV and caused substantial property damage.
- The HRV distributor learned that motor failures sometimes caused fires and notified the motor manufacturer, but the motor manufacturer lacked end-user sales records and could not identify or directly contact homeowners.
- The homeowners’ insurer paid the loss and sued as subrogee, alleging product liability and negligence, breach of warranty, and a post-sale duty to warn.

## Issues

1. Whether the HRV qualified as “equipment or machinery installed upon real property” under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(e), placing the claims within an exception to the 10-year statute of repose for improvements to real property.
2. Whether a component manufacturer that learns post-sale of a fire risk owes a post-sale duty to warn end users when it cannot identify or directly contact them.

## Decision

- The court held the HRV was “machinery installed upon real property,” so the statutory exception applied and the 10-year statute of repose did not bar the insurer’s negligence, product-liability, and warranty claims.
- The court held the component manufacturer owed no post-sale duty to warn the homeowners on these facts, and reinstated summary judgment against that claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the revived negligence, product-liability, and warranty claims.

## Legal Principles

- Minn. Stat. § 541.051 generally bars, after 10 years from substantial completion, actions arising from defective and unsafe conditions of improvements to real property, but contains an exception for claims involving “equipment or machinery installed upon real property.”
- Whether an item is “machinery installed upon real property” turns on the statutory text’s common meaning and the item’s installed, integrated function within the real property’s systems, not merely whether it is required by code.
- A post-sale duty to warn is not imposed on a remote component manufacturer where it lacks practical ability to identify affected end users and effectively communicate warnings through the distribution chain.

## Conclusion

The court treated a permanently installed, ducted heat-recovery ventilator as “machinery installed upon real property,” placing claims about its failure outside Minnesota’s 10-year repose bar, but refused to impose a post-sale duty to warn on a component motor manufacturer that could not identify or contact end users.


Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 911 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 2018)