Buyers of new construction in Minnesota tend to know one thing about chapter 327A: there is a ten-year warranty on the house. That much is true, and it is better than true — the warranty is statutory, it runs with the dwelling to every later purchaser, and the builder cannot make you sign it away. What almost nobody knows is that the same chapter contains a written-notice rule with a six-month fuse, a list of 16 exclusions that swallows most of the complaints I hear, and, since 2010, a mandatory inspect-and-offer-to-repair process that must run before most warranty suits can be filed. The warranty is real. It is also a procedure, and homeowners who treat it like an insurance policy — file a claim whenever, in whatever form — routinely lose to the calendar rather than the merits.
The three warranties, and the six words that narrow all of them
Minn. Stat. § 327A.02, subd. 1 puts three warranties into every sale of a completed dwelling and every contract for the sale of a dwelling to be completed:
(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;
(b) during the two-year period from and after the warranty date, the dwelling shall be free from defects caused by faulty installation of plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling systems due to noncompliance with building standards; and
(c) during the ten-year period from and after the warranty date, the dwelling shall be free from major construction defects due to noncompliance with building standards.
So: one year on workmanship and materials, two years on the four building systems, ten years on major construction defects. The assignment of a defect to the right bucket is often the whole case — a botched furnace install discovered in year three is outside warranty (b), and it reaches warranty (c) only if it qualifies as a major construction defect.
Note the phrase that appears in all three clauses: due to noncompliance with building standards. Section 327A.01, subd. 2 defines “building standards” as the materials and installation standards of the State Building Code in effect at the time of the construction or remodeling. The Legislature added that qualifier to the ten-year warranty in 2001, and the Minnesota Supreme Court flagged the amendment in Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., 676 N.W.2d 672, 680 n.6 (Minn. 2004). The practical consequence is that a chapter 327A claim is a code-compliance claim. A house can be shoddy, disappointing, and worth less than you paid, and still be built to code; if it is, the statutory warranty gives you nothing. Every one of these cases needs an expert who can tie the defect to a specific building-standard violation, and the sooner that opinion exists, the better the claim reads.
Who holds the warranty — and who is on the hook
The statute’s vocabulary does real work. “Vendor” means the person, firm, or corporation that constructs dwellings — and § 327A.01, subd. 7 says flatly that “Vendor does not include a subcontractor or material supplier involved in the construction of a dwelling.” Your statutory warranty claim runs against the builder who sold you the house, not the plumbing sub who did the work. “Vendee” means “any purchaser of a dwelling and includes the initial vendee and any subsequent purchasers.” Minn. Stat. § 327A.01, subd. 6. The warranty follows the house, not the closing.
But it follows the house on the original clock. The “warranty date” under § 327A.01, subd. 8 is the earliest of the initial vendee’s first occupancy or the date the initial vendee takes legal or equitable title. In Vlahos, the supreme court put it plainly: the warranties “run with the dwelling and extend to subsequent purchasers,” but “the warranty period is not reset when a subsequent purchaser occupies or takes title to the property.” 676 N.W.2d at 679–80. Buy an eight-year-old house and you hold a ten-year warranty with two years left on it — and, as covered below, the six-month notice clock and the limitations period can already be running on defects the prior owner discovered.
Chapter 327A is not limited to new homes. Section 327A.02, subd. 3 imposes parallel warranties on home improvement contractors for remodeling work: for major structural changes or additions, one year on workmanship and materials and ten years on major construction defects; for installation of plumbing, electrical, heating, or cooling systems, two years; for all other home improvement work, one year. The warranty date for an improvement is the date the work was completed. Minn. Stat. § 327A.01, subd. 8. And under § 327A.02, subd. 2a, dissolution of the builder’s corporation or LLC does not extinguish the warranties — a provision that matters more than it should, given how often residential builders wind up an entity per project.
What counts as a “major construction defect”
The ten-year warranty covers only “major construction defects,” and § 327A.01, subd. 5 defines the term tightly:
actual damage to the load-bearing portion of the dwelling or the home improvement, including damage due to subsidence, expansion or lateral movement of the soil, which affects the load-bearing function and which vitally affects or is imminently likely to vitally affect use of the dwelling or the home improvement for residential purposes.
Three elements: actual damage, to load-bearing portions, vitally affecting residential use. Damage from soil movement caused by flood, earthquake, or other natural disaster is carved out of the definition itself. Cosmetic problems, nuisance leaks, and bad finish work never reach the ten-year warranty no matter how expensive they are to fix.
One question the definition does not answer on its face is timing: must the load-bearing damage exist at completion, or does damage that develops later count? The builder in Vlahos argued that water intrusion which slowly rotted floor and ceiling trusses over eight years was not a “major construction defect” because the load-bearing damage arose after construction ended. The supreme court rejected that reading and held “that the definition of ‘major construction defect’ in the statutory new home warranty extends to actual damage to load-bearing portions of the dwelling occurring after the completion of construction,” subject to the § 327A.03 exclusions. 676 N.W.2d at 681. In short, progressive deterioration counts — which is exactly how most real structural failures present.
The six-month letter
Now the trap. Section 327A.03 opens with a list of what the builder’s liability “does not extend to,” and clause (a) is the one that kills claims:
(a) loss or damage not reported by the vendee or the owner to the vendor or the home improvement contractor in writing within six months after the vendee or the owner discovers or should have discovered the loss or damage; unless the vendee or owner establishes that the vendor or home improvement contractor had actual notice of the loss or damage;
Read it carefully, because every word is load-bearing. The notice must be written. It runs from when you discovered or should have discovered the damage — a constructive-discovery standard, so ignoring the water stain on the ceiling does not stop the clock. Miss the six months and the loss is simply excluded from the warranty; the statute treats late-reported damage the same way it treats landscaping. The single escape hatch is proof that the builder had actual notice of the loss or damage, and the burden of establishing that sits on the homeowner.
Since 2010, the written notice also starts a structured process, and the process is mandatory:
- Inspection within 30 days. The homeowner must allow the builder to inspect, and the builder must perform the inspection within 30 days of the § 327A.03(a) notice. Minn. Stat. § 327A.02, subd. 4(a).
- Written offer to repair within 15 days of the inspection, stating the scope of work and the start and estimated completion dates. Subd. 5(a).
- Tolling. The statutes of limitations and repose are tolled from the postmark of the written notice until the later of completion of the statutory dispute-resolution process or 180 days. Subd. 4(b).
- If the parties cannot agree on a scope of repair, the homeowner must submit the dispute to the home warranty dispute resolution process under § 327A.051 — a nonbinding neutral evaluation administered through the Department of Labor and Industry, with a $25 administrative fee per party and the neutral’s time capped at six hours absent written agreement. Subd. 5(c); § 327A.051, subd. 3.
- No suit until the gate opens. A tolled claim may not be commenced in district court until the earlier of completion of the dispute-resolution process or 60 days after the written offer of repair. § 327A.02, subd. 7. The exception: if the builder blows off the inspection, never makes the offer, or fails to perform agreed repairs, § 327A.02, subd. 6 lets the homeowner sue immediately.
The process has teeth for builders too: the neutral’s written determination and the offers to repair are confidential settlement communications, inadmissible to prove liability. § 327A.051, subd. 5. And § 327A.051, subd. 6 forgives missed internal timelines where the parties made a good-faith effort — but nothing in the process forgives missing the six-month notice itself.
The sixteen exclusions
Section 327A.03 excludes 16 categories, and I enumerate them because the list — not the warranty — is where most claims die: (a) loss not reported in writing within six months of discovery; (b) defects in design, installation, or materials the owner supplied, installed, or directed to be installed; (c) secondary loss or damage such as personal injury or property damage; (d) normal wear and tear; (e) normal shrinkage within building-standard tolerances; (f) dampness and condensation from insufficient ventilation after occupancy; (g) negligence, improper maintenance, or alteration by parties other than the builder; (h) grading changes by parties other than the builder; (i) landscaping or insect loss; (j) failure to maintain the dwelling in good repair; (k) damage the owner did not take timely action to minimize when feasible; (l) loss occurring after the dwelling is no longer used primarily as a residence; (m) acts of God — fire, explosion, smoke, water escape, windstorm, hail, lightning, falling trees, aircraft and vehicles, flood, earthquake — except when the loss is caused by failure to comply with building standards; (n) soil-movement loss compensated by legislation or covered by insurance; (o) soil-condition loss where the owner supplied the land from a source independent of the builder; and (p) for home improvements, defects in the existing structure and systems not caused by the improvement.
Notice how (f), (g), (j), and (k) hand the builder a maintenance narrative in nearly every water-intrusion case, and (c) pushes personal-injury and consequential-damage claims out of the statute entirely — those proceed, if at all, on ordinary negligence and contract theories, which § 327A.06 expressly preserves alongside the statutory warranties.
Can the builder make you waive it?
No — and this is the strongest language in the chapter. Section 327A.04, subd. 1: “Any agreement which purports to waive or modify the provisions of sections 327A.01 to 327A.08, except as provided in subdivisions 2 and 3 of this section, shall be void.” The two exceptions are deliberately hard to use. A modification under subd. 2 must be a signed writing in boldface type of at least ten points, detailing the warranty involved and the new terms, and it is ineffective unless the builder provides substitute express warranties offering substantially the same protections — a swap, not a strip. A waiver of the ten-year warranty for a specific known defect under subd. 3 requires full oral disclosure, an independent professional’s attested valuation of the price impact, the signatures of vendee, vendor, and two witnesses, and recording with the county recorder or registrar of titles; one waiver per defect. The disclaimer paragraph in a builder’s form purchase agreement satisfies none of this. I have read many of them; they are void.
The warranties are also supposed to be handed to you in writing. Section 327A.08(c) requires the warranties, the exclusions, the inspection and repair rights, and the dispute-resolution process to be set out in written warranty instruments included in the construction contract, and makes noncompliance a violation of § 326B.84 — a licensing enforcement matter. But a builder who skips the paperwork gains nothing: under § 327A.08(d), the omitted warranties are implied with the same effect as if they had been written in.
What you recover, and the clocks that outrank everything
Remedies live in § 327A.05. For a new-home warranty breach, the vendee gets damages or specific performance, with damages limited to the cost to remedy the defect or the diminution in the dwelling’s value — whichever theory fits. For a home-improvement warranty breach, the statute limits damages to the amount necessary to remedy the defect; no diminution alternative.
The limitations framework is its own subject, and the firm’s article on Minnesota’s construction statute of repose owns it — including the ten-year repose wall and the 12-year outer limit for warranty claims accruing in years nine and ten. For present purposes, two propositions matter. First, a § 327A.02 warranty action must be brought within two years of discovery of the breach under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 4 — not discovery of the injury, which is the subd. 1 rule for ordinary construction claims. Second, Vlahos holds that the two years “begins to run when the homeowner discovers, or should have discovered, the builder’s refusal or inability to ensure the home is free from major construction defects” — and that because “vendee” includes every purchaser in the chain, “any discovery of the breach or defect by any vendee triggers the 2-year statute of limitation.” 676 N.W.2d at 675, 678. Buy a house whose prior owner already fought the builder over the foundation, and you may have bought a claim that is already expired.
What I tell clients on day one
For homeowners: the day you discover damage, the six-month clock is running. Send the builder a written notice — dated, specific, delivered in a provable way — describing the loss. That one letter preserves the warranty, tolls the limitations and repose periods under § 327A.02, subd. 4(b), and forces the builder to inspect within 30 days and put a repair offer in writing within 15 days after that. Then keep maintaining the house, because exclusions (j) and (k) punish deferred maintenance and failure to mitigate. And before you buy a newer home, ask in writing whether the seller has reported defects to the builder — the answer affects your clocks, and the seller’s disclosure duties are covered in the firm’s article on purchase agreement disclosure obligations.
For builders and remodelers: put the § 327A.08(c) warranty instruments in every contract, because the warranties bind you either way and the missing paperwork is a licensing violation on top; respond to every written defect notice inside the 30-day inspection window, because § 327A.02, subd. 6 converts a missed deadline into an immediate lawsuit; and paper the repair offer, because a completed repair under an agreed scope closes the loop, while a refusal starts a case. Where the dispute is really about an unpaid sub or supplier rather than a defect, that is lien territory, and the deadlines there are even less forgiving — see the firm’s article on mechanic’s lien deadlines. And if you are tempted to solve chapter 327A by contract clause, read the firm’s piece on construction contract provisions Minnesota law makes void first; § 327A.04 is not the only statute that will unwind your form.
In short: chapter 327A gives Minnesota homeowners one of the stronger statutory warranty schemes in the country, and then makes every dollar of it conditional on a letter, a code violation, and a calendar. The clients who recover are the ones who wrote first and argued later.
Madgett Law, LLC represents Minnesota homeowners and contractors in construction defect and warranty disputes — statutory warranty claims under chapter 327A, the pre-suit notice and repair process, and the limitations and repose defenses that decide many of these cases. If your house has a defect, the most valuable thing you can do is start the written record early. Send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 327A.01 (definitions — subd. 2, building standards; subd. 3, dwelling; subd. 5, major construction defect and the natural-disaster carve-out; subds. 6–7, vendee and vendor, including the exclusion of subcontractors and material suppliers; subd. 8, warranty date for dwellings and home improvements; subds. 9–10, home improvement and home improvement contractor); § 327A.02 (subd. 1, the one-, two-, and ten-year warranties; subd. 2, survival past transfer of title; subd. 2a, corporate dissolution; subd. 3, home improvement warranties; subd. 4, 30-day inspection and tolling from the postmarked written notice; subd. 5, 15-day written offer to repair and referral to dispute resolution; subd. 6, suit upon builder default in the process; subd. 7, pre-suit gate); § 327A.03 (the 16 exclusions, including clause (a)’s six-month written-notice rule and actual-notice exception); § 327A.04 (subd. 1, waiver void; subd. 2, boldface ten-point modification with substitute warranties; subd. 3, recorded single-defect waiver formalities); § 327A.05 (remedies for new-home and home-improvement breaches); § 327A.06 (statutory warranties in addition to other warranties); § 327A.051 (home warranty dispute resolution — subds. 2–3, process and neutral evaluation; subd. 5, confidentiality and inadmissibility; subd. 6, good-faith timeline relief); § 327A.08 (paragraphs (c)–(e), written warranty instruments, § 326B.84 violation, and implied warranties on noncompliance); Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 4 (two years from discovery of the breach for § 327A.02 warranty actions; 12-year outer limit for claims accruing in years nine and ten) — all from the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 2025 Minnesota Statutes; no pending-amendment banners appear on the Revisor’s pages for these sections. Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., 676 N.W.2d 672 (Minn. 2004) (at 675, the limitations trigger — the homeowner’s discovery of the builder’s refusal or inability; at 678, any vendee’s discovery triggers the two-year statute; at 679–80, warranty period not reset for subsequent purchasers; at 681, major construction defect includes post-completion damage to load-bearing portions; at 680 n.6, the 2001 “noncompliance with building standards” amendment), verified against the Caselaw Access Project archive, static.case.law/nw2d/676/.
This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Whether a particular defect is covered, excluded, or time-barred depends on the dates, the documents, and the construction itself, and nothing here should be used to evaluate a specific claim. No outcome is promised or implied.