Because the statute of limitations entitles City to summary judgment, we affirm. After a September 1986 storm, sewage backed up into four or five homes. After a five-inch rainfall in June 1996, sewage backed up into appellants home. Appellants brought this action in June 1998. Respondent successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that the ten-year statute of limitation pursuant to Minn. Stat.
Appellants challenge that judgment.
The applicability and construction of statutes of limitations are questions of law which this court reviews de novo. The supreme court has determined that storm sewers are improvements to real property within the meaning of the statute. Appellants contend that this is really an action for damages resulting from negligent maintenance, to which the statute does not apply. Arlen Rud, the person in charge of respondent s maintenance department, testified in his deposition that he had checked the manhole in front of appellants home at the time of the June 1996 deluge and he observed that the sewage backup was not caused by a sewer blockage. He also testified that the pumps at the lift station were working the way they had been designed to work at the time of the storm.