provision. Id., subd. 1(a). But this repose provision does not apply to actions for contribution or indemnity. Id., subd. 1(b) (providing that an action for contribution or indemnity may be brought at any time, so long as the action is brought within two years of its accrual); Zimmerman, 749 N.W.2d at 103 (concluding that the 2007 amendments to section 541.051 “remove[d] the ten-year repose barrier” to the timely assertion of indemnity claims). Jacobs contends that the state’s indemnity claims became barred in 1977, ten years after substantial completion of the bridge. The resolution of this issue hinges upon whether the 2007 amendments to section 541.051 apply retroactively to revive the state’s indemnity claims. See Larson v. Babcock & Wilcox, 525 N.W.2d 589, 590-92 (Minn.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). In Zimmerman, this court addressed whether
holding that plaintiffs amended complaint was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations where the amendment merely expanded on plaintiffs negligence theories and stating that in a tort action an amendment may vary the statement of the original complaint as to the manner in which the plaintiff was injured or as to the manner of the defendants breach of duty holding that 1990 amendment to section 541051 excluding certain defendants from the statutes protections was not retroactive and therefore claims of plaintiffs injured in 1990 were not revived against designer of an improvement completed in 1953 holding that city need not alter its redistricting scheme even though fouryear terms of aldermen elected in 1991 resulted in a fouryear delay in using new 1990 census data holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983 holding that the plaintiffs claims arose from a certain contract because the subject matter of the plaintiffs suit was intertwined with requirements referred to in the contract