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

Brooks Realty is the older leading case and is the one linked above. Wilcox is the 2016 decision, viewable at 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 governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the Minnesota Supreme Court held in Wilcox v. State Farm that whether depreciated labor costs may be considered in determining ACV depends on the facts of each case, where such evidence logically tends to establish actual cash value. That is a case-by-case standard rather than a categorical rule. With no statute in play the policy is the whole of the law here, so read three things in it: what proof of completed repairs the insurer can require, how long the insured has to claim the withheld depreciation and whether that period can be extended in writing. Policy deadlines commonly run from 180 days to two years from the date of loss and they are enforced as written. Ask for the extension before the period runs rather than after.

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/

The Wilcox holding is taken from a 2025 practitioner survey rather than the opinion. The opinion is at law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2016/a15-0724.html.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Unenforceable as applied to public works contracts by statute (Minn. Stat. § 15.411). No Minnesota court has addressed private contracts.

Minn. Stat. § 15.411 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. § 15.411.

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

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. Two deadlines sit in front of that one on most construction claims. A mechanic's lien and a payment bond claim each run on their own, far shorter clock, counted from last furnishing rather than from breach and missing either one removes the security while leaving the contract claim alive but unsecured. Check those dates first. Accrual is the other half of the question: the period runs from breach, which on a payment dispute is usually the date payment came due rather than the date the work was done.

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

Minnesota's new-employer rate varies by detailed NAICS subcategory, so the construction figures above are a range rather than one number. Residential, commercial and industrial construction and road building are named as high experience rating industries on the higher track. Look up the exact NAICS code on the department's new-employer rate table.

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 federal compilation gives thresholds of $25,000 for multi-trade projects and $2,500 for single-trade projects. Confirm the current figures with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry before relying on them.

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Modified comparative fault, recovery barred above 50% fault (51% bar)

Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is more than 50% at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault still recovers half.

Citation: Minn. Stat. § 604.01, subd. 1

Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/604.01

Verified against: statute text of Minn. Stat. s 604.01, subd. 1

Non-economic damages cap

No general cap on non-economic damages

Most states cap non-economic damages only in medical malpractice actions, which does not reach a third-party construction claim. Economic losses, medical bills, lost wages, future earning capacity, are not capped by these statutes.

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. A state plan must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may set stricter standards, so check the state rule before assuming the federal text applies. Two practical consequences follow. A state plan covers state and local government employees, which federal OSHA does not, so a public works injury is inside the state agency's jurisdiction. Citations are issued by the state agency and contested before the state's own review body rather than the federal commission, which changes where the file lives when you go looking for it. Reporting deadlines follow the federal rule: a work-related fatality within 8 hours, an inpatient hospitalisation, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours. For a construction claim the inspection file matters more than the citation: photographs, measurements, witness statements and the inspector's narrative are usually obtainable and are often the best contemporaneous record of the site.

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

Minnesota is one of a small group of states whose high court has accepted negligence per se for an OSHA violation, rather than treating it as evidence only

The Minnesota Supreme Court is among roughly nine state high courts that have held an OSHA violation may constitute negligence per se, at least in some circumstances, rather than applying the majority rule that treats it as evidence of negligence. Evidence rather than negligence per se means the violation goes to the jury as one fact among several. The worker still proves duty, breach, causation and damages in the ordinary way and the defendant can argue the standard did not apply to it, that the cited condition did not cause this injury, or that the citation was contested or withdrawn. The reverse is also true: compliance with OSHA is not a defence, since the standards are a floor rather than a definition of reasonable care.

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

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.

Minnesota's statutory employer test is not spelled out in the sources behind this entry. Claims against a party that does not qualify turn on common law retained control, premises possession, negligent undertaking, construction contract duties or product defect.

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

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under ch. 176, which may also protect statutory employers

Minn. Stat. ch. 176 makes compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer and may protect statutory employers. Confirm the piercing exceptions directly before relying on them. In practice exclusivity takes the direct employer off the tort table entirely, whatever the OSHA file shows. The claim runs against the other parties on the site: the general contractor, the owner, another subcontractor, an equipment manufacturer. The employer or its carrier then asserts a lien against whatever the worker recovers from those parties, so the figure the worker actually keeps is the recovery less the lien, the fee and the costs. Whether the lien is reduced for the cost of obtaining the recovery is a separate state question worth asking early, because it moves the net more than most people expect.

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/

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