Minn. Stat. § 541.05

A six-year limitations period applies to actions based on liabilities created by statute.

Leisure Dynamics, Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. · filed 1980-07-03Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2)

In answer to question 1 then, the 6-year statute of Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2) (1978), applies to the seller’s cause of action under Minn.Stat. § 297A.03, subd. 1 (1978).

A six-year limitations period applies to an arbitration claim only after a demand for arbitration is made and refused.

Spira v. American Standard Insurance Co. · filed 1985-01-29Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1)

An “action”, as defined in the 6-year statute of limitations, is confined to judicial proceedings. ... In arbitration proceedings, the 6-year limitations statute does not begin to run until there has been both a demand and a refusal to arbitrate.

Section 541.05(2) imposes a six-year limit on an action to recover pension payments owed under statute.

Bond v. Johnson · filed 1965-01-22(2)

In the instant case it is clear that plaintiff did not commence his action within the statutory time allowance. He waited over 30 years after defendants first suspended his payments and over 18 years since he ceased all teaching before bringing this action.

Section 541.05(1) gives an obligee six years to sue on a surety bond when no other limitation applies.

Hayle Floor Covering, Inc. v. First Minnesota Construction Co. · filed 1977-04-22(1)

The general limitation statute, Minn.St. 541.05, ... therefore applies to the bond as a ... contract between Metram and Capitol; Me-tram’s suit was filed well within the 6-year limit of this provision.

The six-year period in subdivision 1(5) yields when the Uniform Commercial Code prescribes a different limitation period.

Mader v. American Motors Corp. · filed 1985-06-21Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5)

Thus, under the explicit terms of Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5), the four-year UCC limitation period takes precedence over the six-year negligence limitation period.

A six-year limitations period applies to an action for breach of contract.

Carney v. Central Life Assurance Co. · filed 1985-04-16subd. 1(1)

Carney’s legal right, upon the offer of the lump sum payment, was to sue Central for breach of contract, and he had six years to bring the suit. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1982).

A contract action is subject to a six-year limitations period, but the period cannot begin before the action is legally available under the contract’s proof-of-loss requirement.

Ryan v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. · filed 1989-02-07(1)

Minn.Stat. § 541.05(1) (1986) provides that legal actions shall be commenced within six years. ... Since no legal action can be commenced until sixty days after a written proof of loss has been furnished, and since no proof of loss was furnished to ITT, the six-year statute of limitations cannot begin to run until such time.

A six-year limitations period applies when a contractual one-year period is unreasonably short and the policy must conform to state law.

Henning Nelson Construction Co. v. Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Co. · filed 1986-03-21subd. 1(1)

We hold, therefore, that the 1-year limitation on actions found in the Builder’s Risk policy was unreasonably short. Under the provisions of the policy requiring it to conform to state law, the policy is hereby amended to include the 6-year statute of limitations found in section 541.05, subd. 1(1).

When the UCC supplies no specific limitations period, a breach-of-warranty action treated as an implied contract action is governed by § 541.05.

E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway National Bank of St. Paul · filed 1989-04-24Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1)

Midway’s cause of action arises as a breach of warranty under the U.C.C. and is in the nature of an implied contract action. Accordingly, since Midway paid the check on February 6, 1981, under Minn.Stat. § 541.05, it had until February 6, 1987 to bring suit against First Bank.

The six-year limitations period for a contract-based UIM action without a Sargent-type contractual accrual clause begins on the date of the motor vehicle accident.

Cattnach v. State Farm Insurance Co. · filed 1998-04-14subd. 1(1)

We therefore conclude that the six-year limitations period for pursuing a UIM action on the policy here (which had no Sargent-type language) accrued on the date of the accident that provided the condition precedent for the UIM claim asserted.

Minn. Stat. § 541.05 does not apply to a statutory-notice cancellation of a contract for deed because the chapter's statutes of limitations apply only to actions.

Lambert v. Bongard · filed 2002-07-23§ 541.05 (no subdivision specified)

A statutory cancellation of a contract for deed is not an action. Thus, the plain language of chapter 541 makes the statutes of limitation in that chapter inapplicable to a proceeding by statutory notice.

The six-year limitations period for contract, fiduciary-duty, and statutory claims accrues no later than when required payments contradict the alleged promise.

Parkhill v. MN Mutual Life Ins. · filed 2002-04-18Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1

Parkhill's breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory claims are governed by section 541.05's six-year limitations period. ... the latest time that any of the claims could have accrued was the point at which Minnesota Mutual required Parkhill to make out-of-pocket payments that were inconsistent with Russo's alleged representations regarding the policy.

Minnesota's statute of limitations allows six years for contract actions.

Land O' Lakes, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau · filed 2013-08-29subd. 1(1)

We, therefore, hold that Land O' Lakes's 2009 duty-to-defend claims were barred by the Minnesota statute of limitations.

The six-year contract limitations period applies to UM claims and begins when the claim accrues, which for excess UM benefits is the accident date.

Jamy Hegseth f/k/a Jamy Jager v. American Family Mutual Insurance Group · filed 2016-03-23subd. 1(1)

It is well settled that UM claims are subject to the 6-year statute of limitations governing contracts, and that the limitations period begins to run when the claim accrues. ... Because the statute of limitations is 6 years under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1), claimants have significant time to resolve both primary and excess claims.

The six-year limitations period in subdivision 1 does not apply to equitable claims seeking to collect an already-obtained judgment; those claims are governed by Minn. Stat. § 541.04’s ten-year period.

Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. · filed 2015-06-22subd. 1

The applicable statute of limitations for such claims is not the six-year period found in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1, but rather the ten-year period for actions upon judgments under Minn. Stat. § 541.04 (2014).

Under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1), (6), the six-year limitations period for breach-of-warranty claims begins when the covenant is breached, while the period for fraud or misrepresentation begins when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting fraud.

Case name unavailable · filed 2015-11-30Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1), (6)

"The six-year statute of limitations began to run on Isanti Pines’s breach of warranty claims in October of 1998." ... "The statute of limitations on a fraud or misrepresentation action begins to run when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting fraud."

The statute gives breach-of-contract claims a six-year limitations period.

Riddle v. Geckobyte.com, Inc. · filed 2018-06-22subd. 1(1)

Rather, Minnesota’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract applies. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1).

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), provides a general six-year statute of limitations for contract actions.

Harmony East Condominium Association v. Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2024-12-19§ 541.05, subd. 1(1)

Minnesota has a general six-year statute of limitations for all contract actions.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), provides a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims, subject to potential equitable tolling.

Jaunich v. State Farm Life Insurance Company · filed 2022-06-28subd. 1(1)

Jaunich seeks to toll the otherwise-applicable six-year limitations period for his breach-of-contract claims. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1).

Subdivision 1(1) imposes a six-year limitation period for contract suits, running as to each amount due under an installment obligation.

First Construction Co. v. Tri-South Mortgage Investors · filed 1981-07-10(1)

The original promissory note was to be partially amortized in equal payments from January 1, 1977, to November 1, 1983, with the balance payable on November 30, 1983. Thus the six-year limitation on contract suits will have run, as to each amount due, after November 30, 1989. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1980). ... The bond should be reformed to provide that the time of indemnification security is extended to November 30, 1989, in order to cover the six-year limitation on contract suits.

Subdivision 1(1) imposes a six-year limitations period on contract actions, running separately from the due date of each installment.

Honn v. National Computer Systems, Inc. · filed 1981-10-161(1)

Applying the 6-year statute of limitations and the rule that each installment payment carries its own statute of limitations, we hold that respondent’s claim for the monthly payments which fell due through July 25, 1973, is barred by Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1980). We further hold that respondent’s claim for the payments due after July 25, 1973, is timely and should be allowed.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), gives breach-of-contract actions a six-year limitations period.

Petersen v. Dekalb Pfizer Genetics · filed 1984-09-25(1)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1982). Thus, the Petersens’ suit was timely.

Section 541.05 requires contract-based actions to be commenced within six years, and that period applies to a judicial action to imply insurance coverage.

Karels v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1985-10-18

The Minnesota statute of limitations provides that actions based upon contracts must be commenced within six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.05 (1984) ... Since there is no underinsurance arbitration clause in respondent’s insurance contracts, respondent’s cause of action, if any, is premised on a judicial proceeding to imply coverage, thus Spira is not applicable and the standard six year statute of limitations applies.

Section 541.05, subd. 1(1)'s six-year period for contract or other obligations allowed Rhodes to pursue his § 1981 claim because it was the period previously applicable in the district, although the court did not decide whether it governs future § 1981 claims.

Rhodes v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. · filed 1987-03-16(1)(1)

Under this analysis, Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1), a six-year statute for actions upon “a contract or other obligation, express or implied,” is appropriate for § 1981 claims. ... The parties have not developed arguments for and against these various possible statutes of limitations. Moreover, on the facts of this case, Rhodes is entitled to proceed under the six year statute of limitations previously applicable to § 1981 claims in this district. Accordingly the court need not decide which of the possible statute of limitations should apply to future § 1981 claims.

Subdivision 1(1) requires contract actions with no other expressly prescribed limitation to be commenced within six years, measured from accrual when the breach occurs.

BGT Enterprises, Inc. v. Gronholz · filed 1987-05-19(1)

Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1 (1986) provides in part: Except where the uniform commercial code otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within six years: (1) Upon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, as to which no other limitation is expressly prescribed; * * *. ... Litigation on a claimed contract must begin within six years after a cause of action accrues. The time period begins to run when the breach occurs. ... Regardless of the date of the alleged breach, September 1975 or March 1976, it is more than six years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, and thus barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1 provides a six-year limitation period for an action upon a contract, including an action under LMRA § 301 to enforce an arbitration award.

Hanson v. Larson · filed 1990-08-21subd. 1

The limitation period in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1, providing a six-year limitation period for actions “upon a contract,” applies to actions to enforce an *342arbitration award under section 301.

Section 541.05, subd. 1(1)'s six-year limitations period did not bar the contract claim because the breach accrued when the insurer stopped payment in 1988, not when the policy was modified in 1977.

Benton v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. · filed 1993-05-25subd. 1(1)

Mutual of Omaha argues that Benton’s breach of contract claim is barred by the six-year statute of limitations, because the cause of action accrued when the contract was modified in 1977. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1990). But, the contract was not modified in 1977, because Mutual of Omaha could not change the policy absent adequate notice. Canadian Universal, 258 N.W.2d at 575. Put more significantly, the breach occurred in 1988 when Mutual of Omaha stopped payment, and thus the statute of limitations does not bar suit.

Subdivisions 1(1) and 1(5) provide six-year limitations periods applicable to an underinsured-motorist claim, beginning on the accident date when the policy has no contractual clause postponing coverage until settlement.

Nelson v. State Farm Insurance Co. · filed 1997-09-021(1), 1(5)

The statute of limitations on an UIM cause of action begins to run on the day of the accident. ... It is undisputed that the statute of limitations is six years, pursuant to Minn.Stat. §§ 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1996) (providing six years for contract cases), and 541.05, subd. 1(5) (1996) (providing six years for tort cases).

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), requires actions on contracts to be brought within six years when no other express limitation applies.

Entzion v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. · filed 2004-03-23subd. 1(1)

Under Minnesota law, an action shall be commenced within six years “upon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, as to which no other limitation is expressly prescribed.” Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2002). ... Here, Entzion’s action for recovery of no-fault benefits denied by Farmers Insurance is based on an alleged breach of the insurance contract. Neither the No-Fault Act nor Entzion’s insurance policy expressly prescribes a period of limitations for bringing such action. We, therefore, conclude that the six-year contract statute of limitations is applicable to Entzion’s action.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), provides a six-year limitations period for a breach-of-contract claim when no other limitation is expressly prescribed.

McClure v. Davis Engineering, L.L.C. · filed 2006-06-13(1)

Rather, McClure Associates’ breach-of-contract claim for a commission on the Lloyd’s Barbeque sale is subject to the six-year statute of limitations in section 541.05, subdivision 1(1).

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), gives contract actions a six-year limitations period, and each distinct breach accrues separately within that period.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. · filed 2007-09-11subd. 1(1)

The statute of limitations for a contract action is six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2006). Generally, a cause of action for breach of contract accrues when the terms of the contract are breached. ... Therefore, we conclude that each failure to defend or indemnify was a distinct breach and could be pursued within six years.

Section 541.05 sets a six-year limitations period for tort actions, subject to applicable tolling provisions.

Eliseuson v. Frayseth · filed 1971-05-28

It is therefore our conclusion from a review of the above cases interpreting § 541.13 that it does not apply to nonresidents of Minnesota and that the time for commencement of this action expired May 24, 1966, when plaintiff attained 22 years of age in accordance with Minn. St. 541.05 and 541.15.

A fraud claim accrues when the facts constituting the fraud are discovered, subject to the statute’s discovery rule.

Kassan v. Kassan · filed 1987-02-03(6)

Appellant, however, presents a claim of alleged fraud, which cause of action does not accrue until the facts constituting the fraud are discovered. Minn. Stat. § 541.05(6).

A fraud claim must be brought within six years after discovery, measured by when the plaintiff could and ought to have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence.

Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. · filed 1989-01-13subd. 1(6)

A cause of action for fraud must be asserted within six years after discovery of the fraud. Discovery occurs when, with reasonable diligence, the plaintiff could and ought to have discovered the fraud.

For fraud claims, the six-year limitations period begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the fraud; when discovery reasonably should have occurred is a fact question.

Barry v. Barry · filed 1996-03-12subd. 1(6)

The six-year limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the fraud. ... The question of when discovery could or should have reasonably been made is one of fact.

For fraud claims, the six-year period does not begin until the fraud is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.

Matter of Trust Created by Hill · filed 1993-04-20Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1

Where fraud is alleged and shown, however, the six-year period does not begin to run until the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.

The six-year limitations period in subdivision 1 applies to declaratory-judgment claims when no other limitations period governs.

Case name unavailable · filed 2015-05-26subd. 1

Therefore, the period of limitations applicable to respondent’s declaratory judgment claims is provided by the six-year statute of limitations found in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1 (2014).

A six-year limitations period for fraud claims begins when the fraud is discovered or, with reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.

CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership · filed 2016-01-25subd. 1(6)

In Minnesota, claims of fraud must be brought within six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (Supp. 2015). “The 6-year period begins to run when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.”

The six-year limitations period for fraud claims starts when the aggrieved party discovers, or should have discovered through reasonable diligence, the facts constituting the fraud.

Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis · filed 2012-07-25subd. 1(6)

The 6-year fraud statute of limitations begins to run when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6). We judge discovery of the fraud under the reasonable person standard. ... The facts constituting the fraud are deemed to have been discovered when they were actually discovered or, “by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.”

For claims seeking relief on the ground of actual fraud, the limitations period does not begin until the injured party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

Case name unavailable · filed 2015-02-181(6)

The limitations period applicable to MUFTA claims based on actual fraud “shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud,” Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (2014).

The six-year limitations period for an action on the ground of fraud includes a discovery allowance, so the cause of action does not accrue until the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

In re Petters Co. · filed 2013-06-19Minn. Stat. § 541.05, Subd. 1(6)

On those considerations, it is clear that the Trustee seeks relief “on the ground of fraud” through his claims under MUFTA, and that the limitations period of Minn. Stat. § 541.05, Subd. 1(6) governs.

Minnesota's six-year limitations period for liabilities created by statute applies to MUFTA constructive-fraud claims, while the six-year fraud limitations period with discovery accrual applies to MUFTA actual-fraud claims.

Finn v. Alliance Bank · filed 2013-09-03subd. 1(2); subd. 1(6)

Actual-fraud claims under the MUF-TA are governed by the statute of limitations in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6); constructive-fraud claims under the MUFTA are governed by the statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2).

For an actually fraudulent MUFTA transfer, subdivision 1(6) applies and the six-year period runs from discovery of the facts constituting fraud.

Finn v. Alliance Bank · filed 2015-02-18Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6)

In short, for the limited purpose of determining the applicable statute of limitations, we conclude that a claim against a transferee that receives an actually fraudulent transfer under MUFTA is for “relief on the ground of fraud,” just as it was for a transferee that received a fraudulent transfer at the time of McMillan and Dux-bury. Thus, we agree with the court of appeals that the district court erred when it dismissed the Receiver’s actual-fraud claims under Minn. Stat § 541.05, subd. 1(2), and therefore remand to the district court for consideration of whether the Receiver filed its action within 6 years of the discovery of the “facts constituting the fraud.”

For fraud claims, the six-year limitations period starts when the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence.

TCF National Bank v. Market Intelligence, Inc. · filed 2016-02-04subd. 1(6)

However, Minnesota follows the “discovery rule” for fraud claims, under which “the limitations period begins to run ‘when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.’”

Minnesota law requires contract and fraud claims to be commenced within six years, and a fraud claim accrues when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

Tharp v. CitiMortgage Inc. · filed 2019-09-061; 6

Under Minnesota law, claims “upon a contract” must be commenced within six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 1. ... Under Minnesota law, fraud claims must be commenced within six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 6. A cause of action for fraud accrues upon “discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud.”

Subdivision 1(6) delays accrual of a fraud claim until the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

Nelson v. Jerentosky · filed 2022-09-26§ 541.05, subd. 1(6)

For claims based on fraud, “the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud.” Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6).

Subdivision 1(5) bars a legal-malpractice claim six years after the claim accrues, when damage from the alleged negligence occurs.

Thiele v. Stich · filed 1988-07-01(1)(5)

There was no dispute in trial court that Thiele’s malpractice action accrued on July 29,1980, when damage from Stich’s alleged negligence occurred. ... As Stich was not effectively served within six years of that date, the malpractice claim was time-barred under Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5).

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) provides a six-year limitations period for the plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

Harju v. Olson · filed 2010-03-29(1)

The statute of limitations for this claim is six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(1). Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duties is not time-barred.

Section 541.05 bars claims for rent that accrued more than six years before the action began.

Bowman v. Plumb · filed 1945-11-02

Further, it is clear that, since the new lease was made more than six years prior to the commencement of the action, any claims against defendant for rent prior thereto are barred by the statute of limitations.

Subsection 1(1) provides a six-year limitations period, and the period does not begin until the plaintiff incurs compensable injury.

Bartlett v. Miller & Schroeder Municipal, Inc. · filed 1984-09-181(1)

The six year statute of limitations is applicable to appellants’ claims. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1976). Those causes of action did not accrue until June 1, 1976, when the first default in payment occurred, or September 1976, when sale of the plant below cost foreclosed any possibility of full repayment of bondholders.

A contract action is barred when the six-year limitations period expired before service of the summons and complaint.

Bentonize, Inc. v. Green · filed 1988-11-22Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1)

Assuming arguendo that there was a breach, it occurred no later than April 22, 1975, when respondents executed a licensing agreement with Ben Enterprises. As such, the statute of limitations had run more than five months before the summons and complaint was served on respondents in late September 1981.

The statute provides a six-year limitations period under subdivisions 1(1), (5), or (7), as applicable.

Pederson v. American Lutheran Church · filed 1987-05-05subd. 1(1), (5) or (7)

The trial court properly noted that the longest limitations period that could possibly apply to Pederson’s claim is six years under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1), (5) or (7) (1984).

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2) provides a six-year limitations period for statutory claims, but it does not govern a claim that cannot be characterized as statutory.

Rice v. Target Stores, a Division of Dayton Hudson Corp. · filed 1988-01-25541.05, subd. 1(2)

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action cannot be characterized as a statutory claim governed by the six-year limitations period set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(2).

Minnesota’s six-year residual personal-injury limitations period applies to discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Air Carrier Access Act.

Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 1996-06-111(5)

Discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Air Carrier Access Act are limited by Minnesota’s six-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5).

The six-year limitations period for a MERLA property-damage claim begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the contamination, applying the common-law discovery rule.

Union Pacific RR Co. v. Reilly Industries · filed 2000-06-14subd. 1

In the present case, we conclude, as did the district court, that the Minnesota Supreme Court would apply the common law discovery rule for determining when to commence the six-year statutory limitations period for a MERLA claim.

Minn. Stat. § 541.05(5) provides a six-year limitations period for personal-injury negligence actions.

D.M.S. v. Barber · filed 2002-06-13(5)

Generally, personal injury actions grounded on negligence must be commenced within the six-year period of limitation provided in Minn. Stat. § 541.05(5) (2000).

Minnesota's six-year limitations period for personal injury actions applies to ADA claims.

Gaona v. Town & Country · filed 2003-03-31not specified in passage

Because the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act enforce the same substantive rights, we conclude that the six-year limitations period of Minn. Stat. § 541.05 applies to the Gaonas' ADA claim as well.

Subdivision 1(2) requires a claim to be brought within six years after the cause of action accrues.

State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert · filed 2015-08-10subd. 1(2)

Because the continuing-wrong doctrine does not apply, the Afremovs’ action must have been brought within six years from the time the cause of action accrued to survive Minn. Stat. 541.05.

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1 provides a six-year limitations period that begins running when the claim accrues, including when the alleged damage first occurs.

Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community Hea · filed 2016-06-13subd. 1

The parties agree that appellant’s claims are subject to the six-year statute of limitations period set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1 (2014).

Minnesota's six-year limitations period governs conversion claims.

White v. US Bank · filed 2017-08-10(4)

We detect no error in the District Court’s treatment of White’s claim as “one of conversion,” and agree that it is time-barred by the six-year statutes of limitations that govern such claims in both New Jersey and Minnesota. See N.J. Stat. 2A:14-1; Minn. Stat. § 541.05(4).

Minnesota generally gives six years to bring an action upon a contract unless another limitation is expressly prescribed.

International Decision Systems, Inc. v. JDR Solutions, Inc. · filed 2019-05-07subd. 1(1)

Under Minnesota law, the statute of limitations for actions “upon a contract” is six years if “no other limitation is expressly prescribed.” Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1).

Minnesota gives six years to bring a breach-of-contract claim.

Huntsman v. 3M Company · filed 2019-08-26subd. 1

The statute of limitations for breach of contract claims in Minnesota is six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1.

Minnesota's six-year limitations period applies to claims based on liability created by statute.

Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Limited · filed 2020-02-031(2)

Under Minnesota law, a six-year statute of limitations applies to any claim based on:“liability created by statute.” Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(2).

Minnesota provides a six-year limitations period for personal-injury-based claims.

Case v. Walz · filed 2021-06-02subd. 1(5)

For § 1983 claims, the statute of limitations is established by the state statute of limitations for personal injury torts. ... In Minnesota, the applicable statute of limitations is six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5).

Minnesota breach-of-contract claims have a six-year limitations period, but summary judgment on a limitations defense is improper when disputed facts concern accrual or equitable tolling.

Jaunich v. State Farm Life Insurance Company · filed 2021-11-01subd. 1(1)

In Minnesota, the statute of limitations for a breach-of-contract claim is six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1). ... An argument that the statute of limitations bars a claim succeeds only if there are no disputed facts as to when the claim arose or whether any equitable doctrines might toll the limitations period.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), provides a six-year statute of limitations for contract actions.

Varela v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-02-13§ 541.05, subd. 1(1)

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2022) proscribes a 6-year statute of limitations for all contract actions.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), requires a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim to be brought within six years of the alleged breach.

Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank · filed 2023-06-23§ 541.05, subd. 1(1)

Under Minnesota law, any cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty must be brought within six years of the alleged breach.

Minnesota's six-year statute of limitations governs § 1983 claims and runs from accrual of the cause of action.

Arrington v. City of Andover · filed 2023-06-27§ 541.05

Under Minnesota law, § 1983 claims must be brought within six-years from accrual of the cause of action.

Subdivision 1(6) provides a six-year limitations period for fraud actions, but it does not govern a motion to vacate an existing order because that motion is not a new action.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. J. T. and N. L. T., Parents · filed 2023-11-20§ 541.05, subd. 1(6)

Appellants seek to vacate an existing order that was signed pursuant to their consents to adoption. They have not commenced a new action.

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) imposes a six-year statute of limitations on breach-of-contract actions.

Knox v. Impact MHC Management, LLC · filed 2025-05-02§ 541.05, subd. 1(1)

a six-year statute of limitations applies to their breach-of-contract action.

Section 541.05 provides a six-year limitations period for legal malpractice and for negligence arising from a continuing common-law fiduciary relationship, rather than the six-month period applicable solely to a personal representative.

May v. First National Bank of Grand Forks · filed 1988-08-16(1)(5)

If First Bank acted in a common law fiduciary capacity, any negligence in that capacity would be subject to the general statute of limitations of six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.05.

The six-year contract limitations period in section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), is general and yields to the more specific period in section 541.051 for injuries arising from defective and unsafe improvements to real property.

Arbitration Demand of 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. v. Bor-Son Building Corp. · filed 1989-06-13(1)

While section 541.05, subd. 1(1) could apply to this action because it arises out of a contract between the parties, section 541.051 may also apply because the injury arises out of a defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property. Where the provisions of two laws conflict, and where they cannot be otherwise reconciled, the more particular provision prevails over the more general provision. ... Section 541.051 clearly contains the more particular provision because it is limited to actions involving a defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to realty, whereas section 541.05, subd. 1(1) applies generally to all actions based upon a contract or obligation. ... Consequently, we conclude that section 541.051, not section 541.-05, subd. 1(1), applies here.

Section 541.05's six-year limitations period governs common-law negligence claims against blood banks based on their administrative and standard-making functions, rather than medical malpractice by licensed employees.

Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc. · filed 1992-07-24

In essence, then, this case is about the administrative and standard-making functions of the blood bank industry for which a physician’s or nurse’s professional license is not required. Therefore, the action is not based on respondeat superior for medical malpractice but for common law negligence by the corporate entities and is thus governed by the six-year statute of limitations, Minn.Stat. § 541.05.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(1), supplies the applicable six-year limitations period when the UCC’s four-year period does not govern a transaction predominantly for services.

Vesta State Bank v. Independent State Bank of Minnesota · filed 1993-11-16(1)

The threshold issue is whether the UCC applies to the lease. If the UCC applies, then its four-year statute of limitations would apply to this ease and appellants’ claims would be barred. See Minn.Stat. § 336.2-725 (1992). If the UCC does not apply, the six-year statute of limitations of Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1992) would apply and appellants’ claims would not be barred. ... Since the contract was predominantly for the provision of services, not farm equipment, the six-year statute of limitations in Minn.Stat. § 541.05 applies to this case. Thus, the district court erred in denying the motion to amend the complaint.

Section 541.05, subd. 1(2) provides a six-year limitations period for statutory causes of action unless a shorter period is provided by section 541.07.

Larson v. New Richland Care Center · filed 1995-12-20(1)(2)

A six-year statute of limitations applies to causes of actions “created by statute, other than those * ⅜ * where a shorter period is provided by section 541.07.” Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2) (1990).

Subdivision 1(5) requires legal-malpractice actions to be commenced within six years, with accrual when the claim would survive a motion to dismiss because some damage has occurred.

Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson · filed 1999-04-08subd. 1(5)

The statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action is six years. We have in the past addressed the question of when a statute of limitations begins to run. A cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action will survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 541.05 gives contract, fiduciary-duty, and specified statutory claims a six-year limitations period, running from accrual.

Parkhill v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance · filed 2000-08-25subd. 1(1), (2), and (6)

Each of these claims is subject to a six year statute of limitation. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subds. 1(1), (2) & (6). ... Therefore, Parkhill’s common law and statutory claims accrued, at the latest, when Minnesota Mutual required the Parkhills to make additional out-of-pocket payments to maintain the policy. ... Because a 1990 accrual date falls well outside the statutory period for plaintiffs common law and statutory claims, those claims are time-barred.

Subdivision 1(1) imposes a six-year limitations period, and the continuing-violation doctrine does not toll it for separate, distinct distributions.

Davies v. West Publishing Co. · filed 2001-03-06(1)

Does the continuing violation doctrine toll or extend the six-year statute of limitations of Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2000), for a claim for breach of fiduciary duty alleging improper distributions made over a 30-year period? ... We conclude that even if the continuing violation doctrine could apply here, because each distribution was a separate and distinct act that could have been challenged by'respondents, the doctrine does not toll application of the six-year statute of limitations.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(5), supplies a six-year limitations period for common-law actions permitted under Minn. Stat. § 340A.801, subdivision 6.

Wollan v. Jahnz · filed 2003-02-11(1)(5)

Because we find no compelling reason to diverge from the negligence analysis used in prior cases under the Civil Damages Act and subdivision 6, we hold that the six-year limitations period under Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) is the proper measure for those common-law actions permitted by section 340A.801, subdivision 6.

Section 541.05 supplies a six-year limitations period when no other limitations period is expressly prescribed.

Bradley v. First Nat. Bank of Walker, N.A. · filed 2006-03-28

The UFA does not contain an independent statute of limitations. Therefore, claims arising under the UFA are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05 (providing that a six-year statute of limitations applies where no other limitations period is expressly prescribed).

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) provides a six-year limitations period for § 1982 civil-rights claims in Minnesota.

Sternjohn v. Kreisler · filed 2003-01-06subd. 1(5)

Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that the personal injury statute of limitations is also appropriate for § 1982 causes of action. Multiple circuits concur in this result and have found that the § 1982 causes of action should be treated like § 1983 and § 1981 claims for statute of limitations purposes See, e.g., Baker v. F & F Investment, 420 F.2d 1191, 1198 (7th Cir.1970); Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works of Int’l Harvester Co. 427 F.2d 476, 488 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 400 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 137, 27 L.Ed.2d 151 (1970); (1985); Scheerer v. Rose State College, 774 F.Supp. 620, 622 (W.D.Okla.1991); Mitchell v. Sung 816 F.Supp. 597, 601 (N.D.Cal.1993).

The general six-year limitations period applies to an arbitration demand, and it begins to run when the demand for arbitration is made.

Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mutual · filed 2004-05-18subd. 1(1)

Because enforcement of the arbitration award is not subject to the two-year period of limitations in the contract, Vaubel’s arbitration demand is subject solely to the general six-year statute of limitations prescribed in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2002).

The six-year limitations period in section 541.05 applies to UM claims, but for a UM claim created by the tortfeasor insurer’s insolvency it begins when the insurer is judicially declared insolvent, if that occurs within six years after the accident.

Oganov v. American Family Insurance Group · filed 2009-06-25

In this case, it is undisputed that a UM claim is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05 (2008) (establishing a six-year contract statute of limitations); ... The narrow issue before us is when the statute of limitations began to run on Oganov’s cause of action for UM benefits. ... We therefore reject the rule that a UM claim accrues on the date of the accident when that claim arises from the subsequent insolvency of the tortfeasor’s insurer. We hold instead that if a tortfeasor’s insurer is judicially declared insolvent •within six years of the date of the accident, a claim for uninsured motorist benefits accrues, and the limitations period begins to run, on the date the tortfeasor’s insurer is declared insolvent.

The statute of limitations bars recovery for claims accruing before April 11, 2000, but charges reconciled after that date remain recoverable.

Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp. · filed 2010-05-25

The statute of limitations bars recovery pri- or to April 11, 2000. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05. Some reconciliations for lease year 1999, however, were completed after April 11, 2000. Therefore, those charges are properly included as damages.

Section 541.05 supplies a six-year limitations period for nuisance, trespass, waste, and Minnesota Environmental Rights Act claims, while CERCLA’s discovery rule governs accrual for these environmental claims.

Minnesota Ex Rel. Northern Pacific Center, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2010-07-14

Plaintiffs claims for nuisance, trespass, waste, and violations of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 116B.01-13 (2008) are subject to Minnesota’s general six year statute of limitations. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05 (2008). A fair review of these claims in plaintiffs complaint shows its alleged property damage was either “caused or contributed to” by defendant’s release of hazardous substances. As such, these claims fall under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) discovery rule set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 9658 (2005).

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1), provides a six-year limitations period for contract claims; the limitations period for a warranty tied to a future event may begin when that event occurs.

Residential Funding Co. v. Academy Mortgage Corp. · filed 2014-11-12subd. 1(1)

The Court finds that, at this stage of the litigation, none of RFC’s breach of representation and warranty claims are properly dismissed as time-barred. Under § 108(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, if the statute of limitations governing a debtor’s claim has not expired prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the trustee may commence an action on that claim before the later of the end of the statutory limitations period or “two years after the order for relief.” 11 U.S.C. § 108(a). The parties agree that Minnesota has a six-year statute of limitations for contract claims. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1): And, here, the instant actions were filed in December 2013, which is within the two-year period following the bankruptcy court’s order for relief. Accordingly, because the six-year statute of limitations had not expired as to loans sold to RFC on or after May 14, 2006 at the time RFC filed its bankruptcy petition on May 14, 2012, those claims are not time-barred. See 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a) (stating that “a debtor in possession shall have all the rights ... and powers, and shall perform all the functions and duties ... of a trustee serving in a case under [Chapter 11]”); Johnson v. First Nat’l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 278 n. 11 (8th Cir.1983) (citations omitted) (“Although the language of § 108 refers only to the trustee, it is generally agreed that the debtor-in-possession is also entitled to the statute’s privileges.”); Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Wallick & Volk, Inc., Civ. No. 13-3512 (MJD/JJG), 2014 WL 3955257, at *5 (D.Minn. Aug. 13, 2014) (finding that RFC was entitled to invoke § 108(a) in a similar case).

Section 541.05 gives six years from the maturity of a contractual claim to bring an action; a claim for unpaid freight charges matures when the charges become due.

Hawley v. Little Falls Mill & Mercantile Co. · filed 1945-06-08

While plaintiffs had the right to sue at the end of each month for the difference between the rate charged and the lawful rate, such right of action matured at the end of each month, when the full charge became due, and plaintiffs’ rights of action on the claims expired six years from that date.

Section 541.05 provides six-year limitations periods for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, negligence, vicarious liability, fraud, and fraudulent inducement claims.

Abarca v. Little · filed 2014-09-22(1), (5), (6)

Defendants argue that Campis’s state-law claims are time barred under the applicable six-year statutes of limitations. See Minn.Stat. § 541.05(1) (unjust enrichment and breach of contract); § 541.05(5) (negligence and vicarious liability); § 541.05(6) (fraud and fraudulent inducement); and Minn.Stat. § 628.26(d) (labor trafficking). ... As such, Campis’s claims accrued before March 12, 2008, and are untimely.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(4), provides a six-year limitations period that courts may borrow for an analogous federal takings claim.

Foster v. Minnesota · filed 2016-12-211(4)

There appears to be no dispute that Minnesota’s six-year general statute of limitations, which applies to state takings claims, is the most analogous limitations period.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), provides a six-year limitations period for a retaliatory discharge claim under the worker’s compensation act, running from the adverse employment action.

Osorio v. StepStone Hospitality, Inc. · filed 2018-09-14subd. 1(2)

The parties agree that the six-year limitations period set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 1(2) applies to this action. ... Here, the limitations period commenced on June 6, 2012, the date of Osorio’s termination, and therefore expired on June 6, 2018.

Section 541.05 provides a six-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including § 1983 claims brought in Minnesota.

Rassier v. Sanner · filed 2020-03-06

As explained in the Court’s prior Order, a six-year statute of limitations applies to Plaintiffs’ § 1983-First Amendment retaliation claim.

Section 541.05 provides six-year limitations periods for contract claims, certain noncontract injuries, and fraud claims.

Shields Law Group, LLC, Spencer Shields v. Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Watts ... · filed 2026-01-12subd. 1(1), (5)-(6)

As appellant agrees, all seven of its claims were subject to a six-year statute of limitations. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subds. 1(1) (stating that claims based on an express or implied contract are subject to a six-year statute of limitations if no other limitation is expressly provided), (5)-(6) (listing a six-year limitation for commencement of an action “for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated,” and an action “for relief on the ground of fraud”); Block v. Litchy, 428 N.W.2d 850, 854 (Minn. App. 1988) (“The applicable time limit for bringing an action in unjust enrichment is six years.”).

The six-year limitations period applies to chiropractic malpractice claims accruing before March 23, 1982, because those claims were not covered by the two-year period in section 541.07.

Underhill v. Knox · filed 1984-09-25subd. 1(5)

Chiropractic malpractice is therefore subject to a six year limitation period for causes of action accruing prior to March 23, 1982. Since Underhill’s cause of action arose prior to this date, it is governed by the six year period under Minn.Stat. § 541.-05 (1980).

Minnesota's six-year personal-injury limitations period governs Title VI and Title IX claims.

Egerdahl v. Hibbing Com. College · filed 1995-12-18subd. 1(5)

We hold that the six-year limitations period of Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) governs Title VI and Title IX claims.

The residual six-year limitations period applies when a plaintiff suffers some damage or the claim is sufficiently ripe to survive a motion to dismiss.

Jacobson v. Board of Trustees · filed 2001-05-29subd. 1(5) (also cited with subd. 1(1) and (2))

This claim is governed by the six-year residual statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) (2000). A cause of action accrues under this statute of limitations when a plaintiff suffers “some” damage or when the claim is sufficiently ripe to overcome a motion to dismiss.

The six-year limitations period for trespass actions under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(3), does not bar a claim on the pleadings when the record leaves unresolved whether the trespass is continuing.

Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes · filed 2008-01-17subd. 1(3)

Because we cannot make a determination on the record before us — where the factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true — whether there is a continuing trespass, we remand the claim to the district court for further proceedings.

The six-year period in subdivision 1(5) applies to negligence torts, including negligent hiring and retention.

Lonnie Strandlund, etc. v. William Hawley, etc. · filed 2008-07-07Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5)

limitations period applies to torts of negligence such as negligent hiring and retention.

Section 541.05, subd. 1(5), provides a six-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, including an unlawful-arrest claim under § 1983.

Markham v. Tolbert · filed 2022-12-20§ 541.05, subd. 1(5)

Minnesota’s personal injury statute imposes a six-year limitations period.

Subdivision 1(5) supplies a six-year limitations period for general personal-injury actions in Minnesota, which applies to § 1983 claims.

L.M.G v. Campbell · filed 2025-05-28§ 541.05, subd. 1(5)

In Minnesota, the general personal-injury statute of limitations is six years.

Subdivision 1(5) sets a six-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions in Minnesota.

Nygard v. Orono, City of · filed 2024-01-05Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5)

The statute of limitations for personal injury actions in Minnesota is six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5).

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5), provides a six-year residual statute of limitations for claims not governed by a more specific limitations period.

Blackwell v. Washington County, Minnesota · filed 2024-12-02Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5)

And his other state law claims, however stated and construed liberally, have at most a six-year statute of limitations under Minnesota’s residual statute. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5).

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 1(5), provides a six-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, including the § 1983 and negligence claims identified by the court.

Doe v. Anoka County · filed 2025-03-10Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 1(5)

(1) Doe’s § 1983 claims—including her equal-protection claim in Count 1 and her Monell/Canton claim in Count 3—are subject to Minnesota’s general personal-injury statute of limitations, and here that is six years pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 1(5).

Section 541.05(5)'s six-year limitations period does not govern pre-1982 negligent-care and supervision claims against nurses when the two-year medical-malpractice period in section 541.07(1) applies.

Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. · filed 1987-12-11(5)

We do not believe that the legislature intended to impose a 2-year period for suit against a hospital and, at the same time, impose a 6-year period for suit against the hospital’s nurses for the very same conduct. ... We hold that claims of negligent care and supervision against nurses which arose prior to 1982 are governed by the 2-year statute of limitations contained in section 541.07(1).

Section 541.05 allows six years to sue for disability benefits when a shorter contractual limitation does not apply or is void.

Dawes v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen · filed 1944-02-04

The 1937 amendment of defendant’s constitution changing the time within which to sue from six years, to which plaintiff was entitled under the statute of limitations, to six months after termination of the payments is void as to plaintiff. He still had the right to sue at any time within the six years allowed by the statute of limitations. This he did.

Section 541.05 imposes a six-year limit on an action to recover an unpaid balance for construction work.

Schueller v. Knapp · filed 1961-01-27

Plaintiff’s statement of account was submitted to defendants on March 30, 1946, after the job had been completed. Almost 14 years later, this action was brought. Clearly, on such facts, the action is barred by the 6-year statute. Minn. St. 541.05.

Section 541.05(1) gives an action for restitution of money paid a six-year limitation period unless another limitation is expressly prescribed.

City of Minneapolis v. Smith · filed 1974-05-03(1)

Minn. St. 541.05(1) provides that any action “[u]pon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, as to which no other limitation is expressly prescribed” must be commenced within 6 years. Plaintiff’s action, being one for restitution of money paid, is contractual or quasi-contractual in nature. ... Therefore, the 6-year limitation applies unless some other limitation is expressly prescribed.

Section 541.05 provides a six-year limitation period for a suit to enforce a hail-insurance adjustment agreement.

Dorn v. Home Farmers Mutual Insurance Ass'n · filed 1974-07-19

We therefore hold Strampe controlling in the case at bar. Since the limitation applicable is the 6-year period set forth in Minn. St. 541.05, we need not today decide when the limitation period begins to run.

Section 541.05(5) provides a six-year limitation period for this negligence action.

Bonhiver v. Graff · filed 1976-11-19(5)

The limitation period on bringing this action is 6 years. Minn. St. 541.05(5). ... The action was thus commenced by Bonhiver against Schwartz, Frumm within the 6-year period of the statute of limitations.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(5), provides a six-year limitation period for negligence claims.

Kossak v. Stalling · filed 1979-03-021(5)

Therefore, plaintiffs negligence claim is subject to the usual 6-year limitation period provided for in Minn.St. 541.05 subd. 1(5).

Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 2, sets a four-year limitations period for strict-liability actions.

Erickson v. Coast Catamaran Corp. · filed 1987-10-23subd. 2

The statute of limitations governing strict liability actions is 4 years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 2 (1987).

The six-year limitation period applies to actions based on liabilities created by statute, unless the liability arises upon a penalty or a shorter period is provided by section 541.07.

McDaniel v. United Hardware Distributing Co. · filed 1991-05-03Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2)

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), applies to liabilities imposed by statute, not to liabilities existing at common law which have been recognized by statute.

Actions upon a liability created by statute must be brought within six years.

Christiansen v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents · filed 2007-06-12subd. 1(2)

Thus, the appropriate limitation period is the six years prescribed in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2), for liabilities created by statute.

Minnesota's six-year limitation applies to liabilities created by statute, including statutory indemnification claims.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Transit Commission · filed 1995-03-01subd. 1(2)

Because indemnification rights among insurers under the no-fault act are created by statute, we find the six-year statute of limitations of Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2) applies to indemnification actions under Minn. Stat. § 65B.53, subd. 1.

The six-year limitation applies to statutory liabilities, including Data Practices Act claims, whether or not the alleged violation is intentional.

Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul · filed 1997-11-181(2)

For this reason, and for the sake of uniformity and avoiding confusion, we hold that the six-year limitation period in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2), applies to all claims under the data practices act, whether or not the alleged violation is intentional.

The six-year limitations period applies to an action upon a liability created by statute.

Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools · filed 2014-12-151(2)

Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2), applies to appellant’s whistleblower action, and appellant’s action is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), provides a six-year limitations period for an action based on liability created by statute when section 541.07 does not provide a shorter period.

Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools · filed 2016-01-20subd. 1(2)

It follows that Ford’s claim is “upon a liability created by statute” and that no shorter limitations period “is provided by section 541.07,” Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2), meaning that the statute of limitations is 6 years.

The six-year limitations period applies to equitable claims seeking relief under statutes, and a fraud claim accrues when the aggrieved party discovers or should reasonably discover the supporting facts.

Linda �RandeeŽ Wines v. Jeff Wines · filed 2016-07-11subd. 1(2), 1(6)

Accordingly, the equitable nature of Randee’s claims does not exempt them from the statute of limitations contained in Minn. Stat. § 541.05. ... This argument has merit.

Section 541.05 imposes a six-year limitations period on an action based on a liability created by statute.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation · filed 2024-04-24subd. 1(2)

an action based “upon a liability created by statute” is subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), gives claims under the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act a six-year limitations period that begins at the sale, without a discovery allowance.

Moua v. Jani-King of Minnesota, Inc. · filed 2009-01-27subd. 1(2)

In Tuttle, the Eighth Circuit held that claims based on violations of the MSFAA are governed by the six-year statute of limitations in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2), which does not include a “discovery allowance” similar to that allowed in the statute of limitations applicable to common-law fraud claims. ... Though this argument regarding the incongruous treatment of MSFAA claims under existing law is not entirely without merit, this Court will follow binding Eighth Circuit precedent.

Personal-injury and fraud actions must be brought within six years after accrual, and for defective-product injuries accrual requires a cognizable physical manifestation plus evidence connecting the injury to the defendant's product, act, or omission.

Tuttle Ex Rel. Tuttle v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. · filed 2004-07-30Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5)-(6)

All parties agree the applicable statute of limitations for the common law negligence, fraud and conspiracy claims is governed by Minn. Stat. section 541.05, subd. 1(5)-(6), providing that actions for personal injury and fraud must be brought within six years from the date of accrual. Before a cause of action can accrue in cases involving injury caused by defective products, the Minnesota discovery rule requires a showing of two elements: “(1) a cognizable physical manifestation of the disease or injury, and (2) evidence of a causal connection between the injury or disease and the defendant’s product, act, or omission.”

The statute generally gives negligence claims a six-year limitations period.

Doe YZ v. Shattuck-St. Mary's School · filed 2016-10-05Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5)

Under Minnesota law, negligence claims are generally subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

Negligence claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

Olson v. Amatuzio · filed 2018-08-27subd. 1(5)

Under Minnesota law, the statute of limitations for a negligence claim is six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5).

For a negligence claim, the six-year limitations period does not begin until the claimant has a cognizable injury and evidence causally connecting it to the defendant’s product, act, or omission.

Hampton v. Mentor Corporation · filed 2018-02-22subd. 1(5)

Under that rule, “two elements must be satisfied . . . before a cause of action accrues in cases involving injuries caused by a defective product: (1) a cognizable physical manifestation of the disease or injury, and (2) evidence of a causal connection between the injury or disease and the defendant’s product, act, or omission.”

The six-year limitations period applies to corporate-waste and statutory-liability claims arising more than six years before suit.

Abbott v. McNeff · filed 2001-05-02Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) and (2)

is applicable to Plaintiffs claims of corporate waste and misappropriation and does so relying on precedent established by the Supreme Court of Minnesota and past practice in this federal district.

The six-year limitations period in subdivision 1(1) governs UIM contract actions and begins when the claim accrues upon an enforceable settlement, including notice that the insurer will not substitute its check.

Stroop v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 2009-04-21subd. 1(1)

It is undisputed that a UIM action is a contract action governed by the six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2008).

A six-year limitations period applies to breach-of-contract and indemnification claims.

ResCap Liquidating Trust v. First Mortgage Corporation · filed 2018-12-21subd. 1(1)

Minnesota has a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract and indemnification claims. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1).

Minnesota applies a six-year limitations period to breach-of-contract claims, beginning when the alleged breach occurs.

Free Spirit Publishing Inc. v. Dworsky · filed 2022-04-18subdiv. 1(1)

Minnesota law provides a six-year statute of limitations for breach-of-contract claims. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 1(1). “A cause of action for breach of contract accrues—and the statute of limitations begins to run—‘at the time of the alleged breach.’ ”

Subdivision 1(1) requires a cause of action on a contract or other obligation with no other expressly prescribed limitation to be commenced within six years; for a loan payable on demand, the period is applied from a timely demand for repayment.

In re the Estate of Oria Albert Brinkmeier · filed 2026-01-12§ 541.05, subd. 1(1)

Under Minnesota law, a cause of action “upon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, as to which no other limitation is expressly prescribed” must be commenced within six years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd 1(1) (2024).

Minnesota law imposes a six-year limitations period on claims for takings of private property.

Kristen Harne and Sheila Foster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State of Minnesota · filed 2015-06-29subd. 1(4)

In Minnesota, a six-year statute of limitations applies to takings of private property.

Minnesota's six-year personal-injury limitations period applies to § 1983 actions filed in Minnesota.

Anderson v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2018-03-30subdivision 1(5)

Thus, as the Eighth Circuit has repeatedly recognized, under Wilson and Owens, all § 1983 actions filed in Minnesota are subject to the six-year statute of limitations contained in the state’s personal injury statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdivision 1(5).

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), supplied the six-year limitations period for this § 1983 claim filed before the shorter period announced after Wilson v. Garcia.

Cook v. City of Minneapolis · filed 1985-08-16subd. 1(2)

At the time this action was filed, ... Minnesota’s six-year limitations period for statutory actions governed § 1983 claims. ... By applying Wilson prospectively, this court holds that plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is not time barred.

The six-year limitations period begins when some compensable damage occurs, even if the exact amount of damages is not yet ascertainable.

Veit v. ProSource Technologies, Inc., and third party v. Carlson Professional Services, Inc., third party · filed 2016-05-09subd. 1(2), (5)

We conclude that Veit’s professional-negligence action accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run, in September 2006, when the appraisal was completed. Although the exact amount of damages may not have been ascertainable at that time, “some damage” had occurred.

The six-year limitations period for legal-malpractice claims begins when the plaintiff suffers some compensable damage, including loss of nonmarital-property protections upon marriage.

Frederick v. Wallerich · filed 2016-08-011(5)

Here, Frederick’s legal-malpractice claim would have survived a motion to dismiss on the day that he married Gatliff because that was the moment when he no longer enjoyed nonmarital protections to his property. Hence, when Frederick filed his legal-malpractice claim nine years later, it was time-barred.

Subdivision 1 provides a six-year limitations period for certain civil actions.

Thornberg v. State Farm Fire and Casualty · filed 2016-04-05Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1

six-year statute of limitations for certain civil actions.

Fraud actions have a six-year period that accrues when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting fraud.

Hernandez v. General Mills Federal Credit Union (In re Hernandez) · filed 2016-06-13Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6)

Under Minnesota law, actions may be commenced within six years “for relief on the ground of fraud, in which case the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud.”

Minnesota’s negligence limitations period is six years.

Kearse v. Mentor Corporation · filed 2017-03-09Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5)

The statute of limitation for a negligence claim is six years. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(5).

For Minnesota products-liability claims, the statute of limitations accrues under the discovery rule.

Robinson v. Mentor Corporation · filed 2017-03-09subd. 1(5); subd. 2

In conclusion, we hold that the Eighth Circuit’s discovery rule is the appropriate standard for determining the accrual date for the statutes of limitation in products liability cases under Minnesota law.

Minnesota sets a four-year limitations period for strict-liability claims and a six-year period for negligence claims, with accrual under the discovery rule requiring a cognizable injury and evidence of a causal connection to the defendant’s product, act, or omission.

Latta v. Mentor Corporation · filed 2017-03-09subd. 2; subd. 1(5)

The Minnesota statute of limitation for a strict liability claim is four years. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 2. The statute of limitation for a negligence claim is six years. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(5).

For a products-liability negligence claim, Minnesota's six-year limitations period begins when the plaintiff has evidence of a causal connection between the injury and the defendant's product.

Alvarado v. Mentor Corporation · filed 2017-11-16subd. 1(5)

Consistent with the Eighth Circuit, we conclude that Minnesota law requires a causal connection before a cause of action accrues in a products liability case.

Minnesota's six-year limitations period in § 541.05, subd. 1(2), applies to retaliation claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

Wilkes v. Biffs, Inc. · filed 2020-08-11subd. 1(2)

Finally, Wilkes’s retaliation claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”), Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(1), are subject to a six-year statute of limitation. See Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schs., 874 N.W.2d 231, 234 (Minn. 2016) (holding that MWA retaliation claims are subject to the six-year statute of limitations found in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2)).

Section 541.05(6) delays accrual of a fraud claim until the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. · filed 1969-03-28(6)

And, except in the case of fraud, ignorance of a cause of action will not prevent the running of the statute. ... “(6) For relief on the ground of fraud, in which case the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud.”

For fraud claims, the six-year limitations period begins when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

ARP Wave, LLC v. Salpeter · filed 2020-02-24subd. 1(6)

Under Minnesota law, “[t]he 6-year fraud statute of limitations begins to run when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.”

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(6), gives six years from discovery of facts constituting fraud to commence an action based on fraud.

Burns v. Ersek · filed 1984-05-08subd. 1(6)

The other state limitations period that could be applied is the general fraud provision found in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6). That section gives a party six years from the date of discovery of facts constituting the fraud to commence an action based on fraud. ... In these specific circumstances, it is clear that the RICO claim is basically one for securities fraud. The more specific three-year securities law fraud limitation, instead of the more general six-year fraud limitation, will be applied.

For a fraud action, the six-year limitations period does not accrue until the aggrieved party discovers, or reasonably should discover, the facts constituting the fraud.

ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme · filed 1988-12-01(1)(6)

Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (1986) provides that a fraud action must be commenced within six years, but “the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud.” ... Absent any suspicion of misrepresentation or any triggering event which could have aroused suspicion, the jury was correct in finding that Lorraine did not know and could not reasonably have known before 1980 that Kvamme was the true stock purchaser. Therefore, this action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

For a fraud claim under subdivision 1(6), when the fraud was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered is a question of fact determined from the evidence.

Estate of Jones Ex Rel. Blume v. Kvamme · filed 1989-12-22(1)(6)

Similarly, we agree with the appellate court’s analysis in affirming the trial court’s determinations with regard to the statute of limitations and the denial of Kvamme’s post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Kvamme urges this court to conclude that Blume knew or should have known all operative facts relative to her claim of fraud before 1980 and that her failure to conduct the necessary inquiry demonstrates a lack of diligence as a matter of law. Bustad v. Bustad, 263 Minn. 238, 243-44, 116 N.W.2d 552, 556 (1962). Accordingly, he asserts that the action is barred by the statute of limitations contained in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (1988). However, as correctly pointed out by the court of appeals, the question of when discovery could or should have reasonably been made is one of fact. Murphy v. Country House Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 351, 240 N.W.2d 507, 512 (1976). The totality of the direct and circumstantial evidence adequately supports the jury’s conclusion that neither the decedent Emlyn nor Blume had reason to suspect any misrepresentation or fraud before obtaining actual knowledge that Kvamme had purchased the stock on his own behalf.

Section 541.05, subdivision 1(6), provides that a fraud action accrues when the facts constituting the fraud are discovered, so fraudulent concealment prevents the limitations period from running before discovery.

Larson v. Dunn · filed 1990-08-31(1)(6)

Further, because “fraudulent concealment of th[e] cause of action will prevent the running of the statute of limitations,” Kopperud v. Agers, 312 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Minn.1981); see also Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (1988) (fraud action does not accrue until discovered), the statute of limitations had not run when suit was filed January 4, 1989.

Section 541.05 bars a fraud claim filed after its limitations period expires.

Tharp v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2021-12-27

We also agree that Tharp’s claims arising under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and his state law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were time-barred. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614; Minn. Stat. §§ 541.05, 541.07.

Section 541.05 imposes a six-year statute of limitations on claims to recover personal property, running from when the claimant's cause of action accrues.

Cleys v. Cleys · filed 1985-02-12

In addition, had Phyllis wanted to make a claim for any of the Moose Lake personal property, she should have done so within the time limits of the applicable statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for the recovery of personal property is six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.05 (1982). The statute began to run against Phyllis when she left Ted in October 1973, and he began to treat the property as his own. See Muus v. Muus, 29 Minn. 115, 118-19, 12 N.W. 343, 344-45 (1882). We agree with the trial court’s finding that Phyllis’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations.