The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge by Jacobs Engineering Group to Minnesota’s attempt to collect millions of dollars from the company to fund payouts made to victims of the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
The case, Jacobs Engineering Group v. Minnesota, was one of more than 150 on the high court's May 29 "order list" that it decided not to hear. As is the court's custom, it did not give a reason for denying the request from Jacobs—or from the plaintiffs in the dozens of other matters it declined to take up.
这座桥是由Sverdrup＆Parcel＆Associates于1960年代设计的，Sverdrup＆Parcel＆Associates是一家工程公司，雅各布斯于1999年收购。跨度的崩溃杀死了13人，受伤145。
The American Society of Civil Engineers and the Associated General Contractors filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Jacobs’ request for a hearing. The briefs note the importance of statutes of limitations and repose in preventing lawsuits against construction industry companies years after projects have been completed.
For Jacobs, the court's decision not to hear the case could lead to a ruling that requires the firm to pay out tens of millions of dollars.
A Jacobs spokesperson declined to comment.
Minnesota, like most states, has statutes of repose and limitation that set time limits on when engineers and construction companies can be sued over property improvements or construction.
当这座桥在2007年8月倒塌时，所有从事它的公司都被席卷了法律要求。URS Corp.从2003年开始检查了这座桥，PCI Corp.从2007年开始在SPAN上进行了维护。
Minnesota agreed to pay 179 survivor claims totaling about $40 million, but state lawmakers passed a bill allowing the state to seek reimbursement from third parties deemed to have contributed to the collapse.
The legal entanglements became more complex as individual plaintiffs sued URS and PCI. The district court packaged the claims for pretrial purposes, and URS and PCI sued Jacobs contending that Sverdrup had misdesigned the bridge. The state sued Jacobs to try to collect money that it had paid out to individuals.
According to Jacobs, Minnesota lawmakers violated the company’s constitutional rights when they permitted the state to seek damages from the firm related to the collapse.
Jacobs had lost at all lower-court levels in its attempts to have Minnesota's claims against it thrown out.
In explaining AGC’s brief in favor of Supreme Court review, AGC of Minnesota CEO David C. Semerad wrote that the decision, if allowed to stand, will “cast great doubt” on the statutes of repose that 48 states and the District of Columbia have on the books.
Semerad说，设计和建筑公司不必“在关键文件和证人消失后很久”不公平地为自己辩护。而且，他补充说：“保险业无法为安置法规中追溯变化的风险定价。”
Updated May 29
