Minnesota Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners on Storm-Damaged Roof Repairs
SJJ was once again at the forefront of insurance law, this time before the Minnesota Supreme Court. On behalf of United Policyholders, SJJ attorneys Tim Johnson and Alexandra Anderson helped secure another important win for Minnesota homeowners. The case—Great Northwest Insurance Company v. Campbell, decided July 30, 2025—clarifies when insurance companies must pay for code-compliant repairs, even if the damage wasn’t directly caused by the storm.
The Issue: Decking and Insurance Coverage
Campbell’s Saint Paul home was damaged by hail in May 2022. His insurance company, Great Northwest, agreed to pay for the damaged shingles—but refused to pay for a required layer of sheathing (a wood base layer beneath the shingles) and also denied the contractor’s overhead and profit charges. The insurer pointed to policy language that excluded both.
Minnesota’s building code, which insurance must comply with under state law, didn’t allow the shingles to be installed unless the gaps in the existing decking were covered with new sheathing. The only way to replace the shingles properly was to install the new layer.
The Law: Code-Compliance Requirement
Under Minnesota Statutes § 65A.10, homeowners with replacement cost insurance are entitled to repairs that meet “minimum code” requirements. That means if local or state building codes require a certain method of repair, your insurance must cover it—even if your policy seems to exclude it.
The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed. Because Campbell couldn’t replace his shingles without first installing the sheathing required by code, the court ruled that the insurer must cover the sheathing cost—even though the policy excluded it. The court explained that insurance contracts cannot override state law when it comes to code-compliant repairs.
What About Overhead and Profit?
The court ruled against Campbell on one point: his claim for overhead and profit. While these are often part of a contractor’s invoice, the court held that Campbell didn’t prove they were required to comply with any building code. Since Minnesota law only mandates coverage for code-required repairs, and there was no evidence showing overhead and profit were necessary to meet code, the insurer didn’t have to pay them. That was a fact specific inquiry that will not apply to every claim.
What This Means for Homeowners
- Your insurance must pay for code-required repairs, even if your policy language says otherwise.
- If a contractor can’t install new materials (like shingles) without additional work (like sheathing) due to building code requirements, your insurer must cover the full scope of that work.
Bottom Line
This decision strengthens the rights of Minnesota homeowners with replacement cost insurance. If you’re facing a denied claim for repairs needed to meet building code—call the attorneys at SJJ today or fill out the form below!