Skip to main content
Alerts & ArticlesConstructionResources

Minnesota Construction Workmanship Warranty – Why a 1 year warranty is really a 10/12 year warranty

Minnesota law requires that every residential new construction or home improvement contract provides a one year workmanship warranty to the customer[i]. Common sense often leads contractors to believe that the warranty lasts for one year and expires after that time if a warranty claim has not been made within that one year time period. Everyone who is familiar with other product warranties would agree with that conclusion. For example, try bringing back a toaster that has a ninety day warranty after the warranty period has expired, and as expected, the returns person will say with insincere sympathy that, “I am terribly sorry but this item cannot be returned because it is out of warranty.” Unfortunately, in the realm of the statutory workmanship warranty, common sense exits the building. This article explains why and how the warranty gets applied.

First, we need to identify the warranty itself. As set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 327A.02, a one year workmanship warranty is provided for both residential new construction and home improvement work. For new construction, the statute provides that:

In every sale of a completed dwelling, and in every contract for the sale of a dwelling to be completed, the vendor shall warrant to the vendee that:

(a) during the one-year period from and after the warranty date the dwelling shall be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance with building standards[ii].

For home improvement work, the statute provides that:

(a) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of home improvement work involving major structural changes or additions to a residential building, the home improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that:

(1) during the one-year period from and after the warranty date the home improvement shall be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance with building standards[iii]; and


(c) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of any home improvement work not covered by paragraph (a) or (b), the home improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that, during the one-year period from and after the warranty date, the home improvement shall be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship or defective materials due to noncompliance with building standards[iv].

In both instances, the important warranty language is: “during the one-year period from and after the warranty date, the [dwelling or home improvement] shall be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship or defective materials due to noncompliance with building standards.”

This language on its face sounds like the toaster warranty discussed above: when the year expires, so does the time to bring a claim on the warranty. That conclusion, however, has been rejected by Minnesota courts[v].

In Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc., the Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a case where a homeowner alleged that a drain tile system was improperly installed; however, the homeowner did not inform the contractor of the defect until after the relevant warranty period had run. The court decided that the lawsuit could proceed because the homeowner notified the contractor of the defect within six months of discovering it and started a lawsuit against the contractor within two years of discovery of the defect. By this decision, Minnesota law rejects applying a requirement that a statutory construction warranty claim must be made within the warranty period; therefore, the warranty, unlike the toaster example, may be pursued and survive long after the actual warranty period ends[vi].

As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Koes case mentions two time periods that apply to whether the homeowner can proceed with the defect claim. The first time period is identified in Minnesota Statutes section 327A.03(a) where the homeowner must notify the contractor of the defect within six months of its discovery. While that time period remains the law, it continues to be weakened in favor of the homeowner. After the Koes case, the legislature changed a requirement that the six months’ notice be in writing to merely providing evidence that the notice was given to the contractor in that time period[vii].

The second time period, a statute of limitations, mentioned in Koes is contained in Minnesota Statutes section 541.051, subd. 4. A statute of limitations is a sort of conditional time limit when some claims may not be pursued by a lawsuit. That law requires that the homeowner must bring a lawsuit on the warranty within two years of discovery of the breach by the contractor[viii]. While this time period remains the law, it also continues to be weakened in favor of the homeowner. After the Koes case, the Minnesota Supreme Court in Vlahos v. R & I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., determined that the breach that needed to be discovered was not the construction defect itself but discovery of the inability or unwillingness of the contractor to honor the warranty[ix].

Finally, a third time period, a statute of repose, is also found in Minnesota Statutes section 541.051. A statute of repose is sort of a final time limit when no claims may be pursued by a lawsuit. This time period has also been weakened in favor of the homeowner. The legislature recently changed the time period from ten years to up to twelve years from warranty date. The warranty date for new construction starts when a homeowner take occupancy or ownership to the home. The warranty date for home improvement work starts when the work is completed. The ten year period extends for up to two years depending on if the homeowner discovered the breach in the ninth or tenth year[x].

Clearly, this has all become complicated and is much less clear than initially thought. If a one year workmanship warranty can last up to twelve years, why does the warranty statute call it a one year workmanship warranty? Why does the warranty statute provide other and longer warranty periods for mechanical systems (two years) and structural components (ten years) if a workmanship warranty is essentially an up to twelve year warranty[xi]? Is the logic in Koes flawed where the Court reasoned that because Minnesota Statutes 541.051 does not expressly require discovery of the warranty breach within the warranty period, the Court would not require such discovery timing[xii]? Perhaps the legislature assumed on drafting the warranty that it was like a toaster warranty and the warranty claim would need to be made during the warranty period[xiii]?

Unless the legislature or the Minnesota Supreme Court revisits the law and adopts a more common sense approach to a statutory workmanship warranty claim that warranty claim must be made during the warranty period, the warranty period is essentially up to twelve years. Unlike a toaster warranty, only the defect had to occur in the one year warranty period while its discovery by the homeowner and a claim made on it can be up to twelve years later. The one year old workmanship warranty monkey on the back of residential contractors in Minnesota is actually a much older and larger twelve year old gorilla.

© 2014 C. Alden Pearson, Acumen Legal Advisors, PLLC.

[i] Minn. Stat. §327A.02, subd. 1(a) (2013); Minn. Stat. §327A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) and (c) (2013).

[ii] Minn. Stat. §327A.02, subd. 1(a) (2013).

[iii] Minn. Stat. §327A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) (2013).

[iv] Minn. Stat. §327A.02, subd. 3(c) (2013).

[v] Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc., 636 N.W.2d 352 (Minn.App. 2001).

[vi] Id.

[vii] Minn. Stat. §327A.03(a)

[viii] Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc., 636 N.W.2d 352 (Minn.App. 2001).

[ix] Vlahos v. R & I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., 676 N.W.2d 672 (Minn. 2004).

[x] Minn. Stat. §541.051, subd. 4 (2013).

[xi] Minn. Stat. §327A.02, subd. 1 and subd. 3 (2013).

[xii] Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc., 636 N.W.2d 352 (Minn.App. 2001).

[xiii] Minn. Stat. §327A.02, subd. 1 and subd. 3 (2013).