Jacobs argues that the legislature did not expressly indicate that the 2007 amendments were intended to revive claims that had already become time-barred. But the supreme court has held that where, as here, the legislature has expressed its clear and manifest intent that a statute apply retroactively, the statute also acts to revive claims unless the legislature expresses a contrary intent in the plain language of the statute. See id. at 418. Because nothing in the language of the 2007 amendments indicates that the legislature intended to make the amendments retroactive without also reviving time-barred claims, we hold that the retroactive application of the current version of section 541.051 revives the state’s indemnity claims against Jacobs. See Zimmerman, 749 N.W.2d at 101-04 (<HOLDING>). II. We next address Jacobs’s contention that
holding no retroactive application holding retroactive application holding that the act is retroactive recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary holding that a general contractors claims for contribution and indemnity were revived by the retroactive application of minnstat  541051 supp2007