Clear Choice Restoration

Roofing, Siding and Window Replacement Throughout The Twin Cities

According to the Sarazins' filings, they hired Clear Choice Restoration expecting professional roofing, siding, window, and insurance-related work. The documents detail repeated concerns about workmanship, incomplete scopes, and poor communication that were never addressed to the homeowners' satisfaction.

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 nine publicly searchable cases involving Clear Choice Restoration. These homeowners felt strongly enough to pursue legal action rather than quietly accept the work as delivered.

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: 02-CV-22-2664 Clear Choice Restoration vs Marcus Sarazin, Katina Sarazin (the homeowners documented 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.

These 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.

The bullet points above summarize the Sarazins' motion filed with the court and serve as the source for this page.

Download the Sarazin Memorandum (PDF)

The settlement terms have not been posted publicly, but the filings show the homeowners disputed CCR's workmanship for nearly three years and still report never receiving a satisfactory resolution.