Construction Claim Rules in Minnesota

Statutory interest rate

4% (judgments ≤$50,000) or 10% (judgments over $50,000), fixed

Two-tier structure: smaller judgments use a rate set annually by the State Court Administrator off the 1-year Treasury yield (floored at 4%); larger judgments (non-government party) use a flat 10%.

Compounding: Simple

Citation: Minn. Stat. § 549.09

Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/549.09

Last checked: 2026-08-23

Verified for 2026: the State Court Administrator set the calendar-year 2026 rate for judgments of $50,000 or less at 4%, the statutory floor (revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule/msinte). The $50,000 threshold and the flat 10% rate for larger judgments against non-government parties remain current per the statute text.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

Not simply date of breach: from the earliest of when the action was filed, arbitration was demanded, or written notice of claim was given

Minn. Stat. § 549.09 uses a single accrual rule for all pecuniary-damages claims: interest starts from the earliest of the commencement of the action, a demand for arbitration, or a written notice of claim (a notice-of-claim date only counts if the action is then actually commenced within two years of that notice).

Citation: Minn. Stat. § 549.09

Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/549.09

The statute makes no distinction between contract and tort/property-damage claims; the same rule applies to both, so this entry and the property one below are identical.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same rule as contract claims: from the earliest of filing, arbitration demand, or written notice of claim

Minnesota's prejudgment interest statute doesn't single out property damage or other tort claims for different treatment; the same earliest-of-three-triggers rule from the contract entry above applies, so sending a sworn written notice of claim promptly can start interest running well before a lawsuit is filed.

Citation: Minn. Stat. § 549.09

Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/549.09

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule

Jury may weigh multiple factors, including depreciated labor cost where it logically tends to establish ACV.

Citation: Brooks Realty, Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 149 N.W.2d 494 (Minn. 1967); Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 874 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 2016)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1967/40050-1.html

Both citations were confirmed against free primary opinion text in a follow-up verification pass; Brooks Realty (the case linked above) is the older, leading case; Wilcox is viewable at https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2016/a15-0724.html.

ACV statute or regulation

Minnesota does not have a statute defining ACV depreciation or restricting labor depreciation; the state follows a case-by-case common-law rule.

Minnesota's property insurance statutes (Minn. Stat. ch. 65A, including section 65A.10) govern replacement cost coverage requirements and disclosures but do not define how ACV depreciation must be calculated or address labor cost specifically. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Wilcox v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 874 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 2016), held that a fact-finder may consider depreciated labor costs when determining ACV under the broad evidence rule, but only where the evidence logically tends to establish actual cash value, leaving the question to case-by-case determination rather than a statutory rule.

Citation: Minn. Stat. section 65A.10; Wilcox v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 874 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 2016)

Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/65A.10

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Minnesota statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Minnesota uses a case-by-case, fact-finder approach rather than a bright-line rule.

No Minnesota statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that whether depreciated labor costs may be considered in determining ACV depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, where such evidence 'logically tends to establish' actual cash value -- a case-by-case standard rather than a categorical rule.

Citation: Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. A15-0724, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 50 (Minn. Feb. 10, 2016).

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

RESEARCHED from scratch. No holdback-timing statute found; the labor-depreciation holding is from a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey, not independently re-verified against the primary opinion in this pass.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Unenforceable as applied to public works contracts by statute (Minn. Stat. Section15.411). No Minnesota court has addressed private contracts.

Minn. Stat. Section15.411 voids any public-works-contract clause waiving, releasing, or extinguishing a contractor's right to recover costs, damages, or an equitable adjustment for delays caused by acts of the contracting public entity. No Minnesota state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses outside the public context.

Citation: Minn. Stat. Section15.411.

Source: https://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive 50-state matrix (Woods Aitken LLP) specifically on no-damage-for-delay clause enforceability, covering all 50 states with primary citations.

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for a contract action

Minnesota's default limitations period for an action upon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, where no other limitation is expressly prescribed, is 6 years from accrual, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim.

Citation: Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1

Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/541.05

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New employers are assigned an industry-based rate; for construction industries this generally runs from about 1.48% to 8.90% for 2026. Established employers range from 0.00% to 8.90%. The 2026 taxable wage base is $44,000, up $1,000 from 2025.

Minnesota assigns new employers a rate based on their NAICS industry classification rather than a single flat new-employer rate. For 2026, non-construction industries generally range from 1.00% to 4.06%, while construction industries range roughly from 1.48% (e.g. residential building construction) up to the 8.90% maximum for higher-risk construction categories such as highway construction and masonry contracting. Established employers with sufficient rating history are individually experience-rated between 0.00% and 8.90%, based on a four-year benefits-to-wages ratio (July 2021 through June 2025 for the 2026 rate year). The 2026 taxable wage base is $44,000 per employee, up $1,000 from 2025.

Citation: Unemployment Insurance Minnesota (DEED), Tax Rate Information

Source: https://www.uimn.org/employers/wages-taxes/tax-rates/index.jsp

Last checked: 2026-08-26

Because Minnesota's new-employer rate varies by detailed NAICS subcategory, the figures above are a general construction-industry range rather than a single number; look up the exact NAICS code on the live UIMN new-employer rate table for a precise figure, and reconfirm all rates and the wage base annually. Wage base confirmed directly against the official uimn.org site; residential/commercial/industrial construction and road building are explicitly named as "High Experience Rating Industries" receiving the higher new-employer rate track, confirming the existing entry's structure.

Workers' compensation rating

Minnesota does not use NCCI directly. Rating data and loss cost recommendations are handled by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Insurers Association (MWCIA), subject to Department of Commerce oversight.

Minnesota workers' compensation rating is administered by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Insurers Association (MWCIA), a licensed data service organization that collects statistical data and files loss cost recommendations, which are reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the state insurance regulator) with input from the Workers' Compensation Advisory Council.

Citation: Minnesota Workers' Compensation Insurers Association (MWCIA)

Source: https://www.mwcia.org/

Prevailing wage law

Minnesota has a state prevailing wage law (Minn. Stat. Sections 177.41-177.44), covering state-funded construction and public works projects.

Minnesota's prevailing wage law is codified at Minnesota Statutes Sections 177.41 through 177.44 and requires that laborers and mechanics on state-funded construction and public works projects be paid wages comparable to those paid for similar work in the project's local area. It is administered by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.

Citation: Minn. Stat. Sections 177.41-177.44

Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/177/full

A specific dollar contract threshold was not confirmed directly from the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry site during this research; a secondary U.S. Department of Labor compilation cited thresholds of $25,000 for multi-trade projects and $2,500 for single-trade projects, but this was not independently verified against a current DLI source. Reconfirm the current threshold directly with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry before publishing a specific figure.

OSHA plan

MNOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector

Minnesota operates MNOSHA (Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration), a full OSHA-approved state plan covering both private and public-sector employers.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; Minn. Stat. § 182

Source: https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/mn

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

CORRECTED/UPGRADED: Minnesota is actually one of a small minority of states whose high court has endorsed pure negligence per se for OSHA violations, not merely evidence.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is counted among only about nine state high courts nationally that have held OSHA violations may constitute pure negligence per se (as opposed to the majority 'some evidence' rule), at least under some circumstances.

Citation: Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651, 662 (Minn. 2004).

Source: https://storage.googleapis.com/jnl-bcls-j-bclr-files/journals/1/articles/232/63a30c0a100a2.pdf

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive, exhaustively-footnoted 2020 Boston College Law Review survey of all 50 states + DC on this exact question, cross-checked against the underlying case for accuracy where feasible. This is a stronger classification than the generic 'evidence of negligence' placeholder previously used -- Minnesota is genuinely a minority pure-negligence-per-se jurisdiction, similar to Idaho, Iowa (employer-employee only), Montana, and a handful of others.

Third-party contribution against the employer

Minnesota may extend protection to statutory employers; non-immune third parties are reached via common-law retained control, premises possession, negligent undertaking, construction contracts, or product defect.

The source doesn't detail Minnesota's statutory-employer qualifying test beyond confirming it exists.

Citation: Minn. Stat. ch. 176; Conover v. Northern States Power Co., 313 N.W.2d 397 (Minn. 1981).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1981/51529-2.html

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under ch. 176, may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.

Minn. Stat. ch. 176 generally makes compensation exclusive against the employer and may protect statutory employers. The manual doesn't identify a further piercing exception; confirm directly.

Citation: Minn. Stat. ch. 176; Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, 705 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 2005).

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2158073/stringer-v-minnesota-vikings/

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke.

Distinctive state doctrine

"Lambertson liability" (see thirdPartyContribution)

See thirdPartyContribution above.

Citation: Lambertson v. Cincinnati Welding Corp., 312 Minn. 114 (1977)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1367971.html