John Knapp | Stinson
On April 13, 2026, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a precedential decision in Haire-Cochran v. 24 Restore, Inc., reversing a district court’s dismissal of claims against a restoration company and clarifying an important question regarding the scope of the two-year statute of limitations under Minnesota Statutes section 541.051, subdivision 1(a). The court of appeals held that construction work performed on real property after a fire is not necessarily “an improvement to real property” for purposes of that statute if the intent of the construction is to return the property to its pre-damaged condition. And the shorter two-year limitations period therefore does not automatically apply to claims arising from post-casualty restoration projects. The court of appeals therefore reversed and remanded for additional proceedings to determine whether there was an improvement made to the real property.
Case Background
In January 2019, Tonita Haire-Cochran’s home suffered extensive fire damage. She contracted with 24 Restore, Inc. to perform construction work that included restoring and refinishing the property to like-new condition. When Haire-Cochran moved back into the home in November 2019, she observed that the work was “incomplete, unworkmanlike, and over cost.” She identified numerous deficiencies. After two years of unsuccessful negotiations, Haire-Cochran commenced an action in March 2024, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, negligence, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
24 Restore moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Haire-Cochran’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a), which applies to claims “arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property.” Haire-Cochran argued that the general six-year statute of limitations applied pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 541.05. The Hennepin County District Court granted 24 Restore’s motion to dismiss, finding that the work was an improvement to the real property because 24 Restore made “permanent additions” to the home that were “installed through the expenditure of labor and money” and “designed to make the house more useful and enhance its value.”
The Court of Appeals’ Analysis
Haire-Cochran appealed the district court’s decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for continued proceedings.
In considering whether the two-year or six-year statute of limitations applied, the court of appeals considered the Minnesota Supreme Court’s definition of an improvement to real property: “a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.” Moore v. Robinson Env’t, 954 N.W.2d 164, 174 (Minn. 2021). Additionally, there is a three-factor test to determine whether changes or additions to real property meet this definition: (1) whether the addition or betterment is permanent; (2) whether it enhances the capital value of the property; and (3) whether it is designed to make the real property more useful or valuable, rather than intended to restore the property’s previous usefulness or value. Siewert v. Northern States Power Co., 793 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2011).
As to the first Siewert factor, the court of appeals found that the work was permanent and thus the first factor supported characterizing the work as an improvement. Second, the court of appeals determined that the complaint did not establish that the work enhanced the capital value of the home and was therefore not supportive of characterizing the work as an improvement, reasoning that restoring the home to “like-new condition” merely returned it to its pre-fire state rather than increasing its value.
In addressing the third factor of whether the construction was intended to restore or improve, the court of appeals held that the relevant comparison is between the property’s condition before the damaging event and its condition after the work, not between the post-fire damaged condition and the restored condition. Stated differently, the court of appeals considered whether the construction was meant to improve the home beyond the pre-fire condition or to restore the home to the pre-fire condition.
Here, the court of appeals concluded that the complaint alleged that the work was designed to restore the home to its prior condition rather than to make it more useful or valuable than it had been before the fire. The court of appeals also considered the contractual language which it interpreted to reflect that the aim of the repair was to repair the damage throughout the home.
The court of appeals distinguished prior cases where work was found to constitute an improvement to real property, including remodeling projects that brought buildings into code compliance through installation of exit doors and smoke detectors or changed the character of the property. The court of appeals reasoned that such projects were designed to make the property more useful and valuable as opposed merely to restoring the property to its pre-damaged condition.
The court of appeals also rejected 24 Restore’s argument that the extensive scope and cost of the restoration work distinguished it from ordinary repairs. Importantly, the court of appeals held that the intent of the work, and not merely its scope, is what matters when determining whether the work made the property more useful or valuable than it was before the damage occurred.
The court of appeals clarified that post-casualty construction work could qualify as an improvement to real property where the project is designed to change the nature or value of the property beyond simple restoration. The decision therefore does not categorically exclude all post-fire work from the two-year limitations period; instead, it requires a fact-specific inquiry under the Siewert factors. The court of appeals did not reach the question of whether the claims arose out of a “defective and unsafe condition,” which is a separate requirement under section 541.051, subdivision 1(a).
Key Takeaways
The ruling clarifies that post-casualty restoration work may fall outside the shorter two-year statute of limitations when the work is designed to return property to its pre-loss condition. This decision has a few important implications for contractors in Minnesota.
First, contractors and property owners can avoid unnecessary uncertainty by implementing specific contractual language that clarifies the intent of the work to be performed.
Second, contractors should revisit their insurance policies to make certain that coverage is not limited to the two-year statute of limitations period in situations where the intent of the construction project is restoration.
Third, contractors and property owners should also be mindful that even if the initial intent of the project is restoration, the Siewert analysis may yield a different result based on developments that occur over the course of the project. For that reason, any improvements or changes agreed to after the initial contract is signed should always be carefully documented and preserved.
Fourth, it is important to remember the ruling here is based entirely on the facts as alleged in the complaint by the property owner. The contractor may be able to subsequently demonstrate that the intent of the construction project went beyond merely restoring the property.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.