Clear Choice Restoration

Roofing, Siding and Window Replacement Throughout The Twin Cities

I (Dale Lotts) don't know about you, but I expect a company that specializes in roofing, siding and window replacement to be able to do the work properly. I also expect them to take responsibility for their work and to make it right if they don't do the work properly. I also expect them to be professional and courteous in their dealings with customers. Unfortunately, Clear Choice Restoration did not meet these expectations in my case, and it appears to me that this customer has a similar experiance.

The Clear Choice Restoration Promise

On their website, Clear Choice Restoration claims they maintain high standards in roofing, siding and window replacement craftsmanship and business practices. They go on to claim that the following standards, among others, are the core to our high quality service and completely satisfied clients.

  • Highly professional, licensed and fully insured construction, repair and restoration services.
  • Warranty – all services warrantied to meet or exceed Minnesota statutory warranties

Judge the professionalism for yourself by reading the information on this page and the other pages on this site.

Other Victims

As of June 5, 2025, there are 9 cases involving Clear Choice Restoration. These are just the folks who feel strongly enough to attempt legal action, imagine how many more there must be who were told the same thing I was "The best you can hope for is to break even. You're better off to pay them and make it go away." Which is good advice in most cases, and if you hire CCR, you might be hearing the same thing from your attorney.

You can see all cases involving CCR by visiting https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/CaseSearch, selecting "Business" and then entering "Local Property Management*" (note the * at the end) and then click find.

The following cases that involve Clear Choice Restoration:

  • Case Number: 71-CV-24-1894 Clear Choice Restoration vs Shane Berg, Sarah Berg
  • Case Number: 62-CV-24-5958 Clear Choice Restoration vs Eileen Lagos (CCR appealed because Eileen won her other case)
  • Case Number: 62-CO-24-2069 Clear Choice Restoration vs Eileen Lagos (Eileen won this one)
  • Case Number: 62-CV-24-1760 Clear Choice Restoration vs Dale Lotts (This is my case)
  • Case Number: 02-CV-22-2664 Clear Choice Restoration vs Marcus Sarazin, Katina Sarazin (These are the customers on this page)
  • Case Number: 02-CO-21-2376 Clear Choice Restoration vs Matt Johnson
  • Case Number: 13-CO-20-77 Clear Choice Restoration vs April Borash, Lee Borash

Do yourself a favor, don't get on this list.

If you are a victim of Clear Choice Restoration, please contact me at hello@clearchoicerestoration.org, I'd love to help you.

This Customers' Claims

  1. On June 10, 2021, the Parties entered into a contract (“Window Contract”) wherein Plaintiff (CCR) agreed to supply Customer certain labor and materials for replacing windows and casings at the Property and Customer would pay Plaintiff (CCR) $30,100 plus the cost of the permit. The terms of the contract state that 50% of the total cost would be paid at the time of signing and the balance due would be paid when the work was completed and the permit is closed out.
  2. On June 17, 2021, the Parties entered into a contract (“Insurance Contract”) wherein Plaintiff (CCR) agreed to supply Customer with certain labor and materials pursuant to the scope and price of the repairs approved by Customer’ insurer, initially in the amount of $26,244.05.
  3. According to the insurer’s scope, the work included tear off, replacement, and disposal of roofing materials, valleys, flashing, vents, and caps, and removal and replacement of gutters and downspouts.
  4. The insurer first approved the claim on April 21, 2019 for $26,244.05.
  5. On June 29, 2021, the insurer agreed to increase the replacement costs by an additional $4,841.03.
  6. The contract expressly stated it was subject to both parties’ approval of insurer scope, pricing, and payment terms, which never occurred.
  7. Plaintiff (CCR) never requested nor was informed of the exact increased replacement costs.
  8. There is no evidence either party ever expressly accepted the insurer’s scope, pricing, or payment terms.
  9. On August 31, 2021, the Parties entered the “Siding Contract” for $13,010.94 covering siding work, gutters, and downspouts.
  10. Plaintiff (CCR) never sought specifics for gutters or downspouts under the Insurance Contract.
  11. Plaintiff (CCR) never attempted to perform under the Insurance Contract.
  12. Plaintiff (CCR) did not demand liquidated damages under the Insurance Contract before filing suit.
  13. No gutters or downspouts were ever installed under either contract.
  14. Customer paid $30,000 toward the Window Contract, which Plaintiff (CCR) admits was incomplete.
  15. On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff (CCR) emailed that “CCR is done” and offered to settle completed work only.
  16. Invoice #MN-5547, dated October 20, 2021, did not include any liquidated damages.
  17. Plaintiff (CCR) seeks 25% liquidated damages under the Insurance Contract despite separately contracting for the same work.
  18. Invoice #MN-5547 charged $297 for gutter/downspout removal as a siding change order.
  19. On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff (CCR) emailed the $7,545.89 invoice to Customer.
  20. Plaintiff (CCR) made no further demand beyond the $7,545.89 invoice.
  21. On October 29, 2021, Customer’ counsel objected to that invoice.
  22. On November 19, 2021, Customer’ counsel provided detailed objections and settlement offers.

This is the customers actual motion filed with the court and the source of information on this page.

As far as I know, the actual settlement terms are not publicly avialable so I don't (yet) know how this case ended up. At the very least, you can see the customer was unhappy enough with CCR to fight with them for nearly three years about their shoddy workmanship.