Built for GCs · Claims Consultants · Attorneys · Adjusters
Turn messy claim & overhead spreadsheets into a defensible, citation-backed report, in minutes.
Five calculation engines — delay and extended overhead, labor burden, property loss, litigation interest, site injury — with the industry-standard formula cited in every output.
Eichleay Formula (home office overhead)
MCAA loss-of-efficiency factors
ACV / RCV depreciation schedules
Statutory pre/post-judgment interest
Construction Delay & Extended Overhead Calculator
Combines the Eichleay formula for unabsorbed home office overhead, daily extended field overhead (general conditions) and MCAA-based labor inefficiency into one defensible delay claim. Whether a delay claim like this is even recoverable can depend on your state: many "no damages for delay" clauses are enforceable with narrow exceptions, while construction contract claims are subject to a state-specific filing deadline. Check your state's delay-claim rules ↓
Eichleay Formula
Daily General Conditions
MCAA Loss-of-Efficiency
Eichleay: Home Office Overhead Unabsorbed overhead from owner-caused delay
What it means: The total dollar amount you've billed (or will bill) the owner on this specific contract during the period covered by this claim (your revenue on this job, not your profit). What to enter: Pull this from your job cost report, AIA G702/G703 pay applications, or contract billing summary for the relevant period.
What it means: Your company's total billings across every active contract during that same time period (the denominator in the Eichleay formula). What to enter: Use your company-wide revenue report or income statement for the exact same period as the contract billings above.
What it means: Your company's total home office (G&A) overhead for that same period: executive salaries, office rent, insurance, accounting, admin staff. This is not job-site cost. What to enter: Use the overhead/G&A section of your income statement for the matching period.
What it means: The total number of calendar days the contract actually took to complete, including the delay, from notice to proceed through final completion. This spreads overhead across the whole job. What to enter: Count calendar days from your notice-to-proceed date to your actual (delayed) completion date.
What it means: The number of calendar days of delay caused by the owner (or another party) and not your fault (the days you're actually entitled to recover for). What to enter: Use documented, excusable/compensable delay days from your schedule analysis, not just any schedule slip.
Extended Field Overhead Daily general conditions during delay
What it means: Your actual daily cost to keep the job site running while delayed: site trailer, superintendent salary, utilities, equipment rentals, temporary fencing/security, extended insurance and bonding. What to enter: Divide your total general conditions budget by the original contract duration in days, or use your actual field overhead invoices/cost reports.
Uses the same Compensable Delay Days entered above.
Labor Inefficiency MCAA loss-of-productivity factors
What it means: The direct labor cost (wages, not the fully burdened rate) for the trade(s) whose productivity was impacted by the disruption, e.g., the framing crew forced to work out of sequence. What to enter: Use payroll or job cost reports for just the affected labor, not the entire project's labor cost.
What it means: How severe the disruption was to your crews. MCAA (Mechanical Contractors Association of America) publishes standard loss-of-productivity percentages tied to documented disruption conditions like trade stacking, overtime and out-of-sequence work. What to enter: Pick the category that best matches your documented site conditions; when in doubt, choose a lower, more conservative factor unless you have strong documentation supporting a higher one.
Total Defensible Claim
$0
Per Delay Day
$0
Live Breakdown Chart
Preview
Full Line-Item Breakdown
| Line Item | Amount |
|---|
The full line-item breakdown is available with a paid ClaimDuke unlock: visit claimduke.com to purchase a report.
Methodology:
True Labor Burden & Overhead Recovery Calculator
Reveals the fully burdened hourly cost of every field employee and the markup required to recover indirect overhead, so bids stop leaking profit. Payroll tax and workers' comp inputs above are blended defaults; the real numbers are state-specific: SUTA rates and wage bases vary widely, most states rate workers' comp through NCCI but several run their own independent bureau, and roughly half the states layer a prevailing-wage law on top for public work. Check your state's labor-burden rules ↓
Fully Burdened Rate
Overhead Recovery Markup
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
What it means: The straight-time hourly wage you pay the employee before any taxes, insurance, or burden are added. What to enter: The hourly rate printed on their pay stub or payroll record.
What it means: Employer-paid payroll taxes as a percentage of wages: FICA (7.65%), FUTA and SUTA combined. What to enter: 9% is a common blended default; check your payroll provider's employer tax summary for your actual combined rate.
What it means: Your workers' compensation insurance premium rate as a percentage of payroll for this trade's class code. Rates vary a lot by trade (office staff vs. roofers, for example). What to enter: Check your workers' comp policy or ask your insurance broker for the exact class-code rate.
What it means: The cost of paid time the employee isn't actually working (vacation, holidays, sick time) as a percentage of wages. What to enter: Calculate as (paid non-working hours ÷ paid working hours) × 100, or use your HR policy's PTO allotment.
What it means: Any other per-employee indirect cost not captured elsewhere: safety equipment, training, small tools allocated per person, uniforms/PPE. What to enter: Use 0% if none apply, or estimate from your job cost history.
What it means: Your company's cost of health insurance premiums for this employee, converted to a per-hour figure. What to enter: Annual premium ÷ annual paid hours; check your benefits provider's invoice for the actual premium.
What it means: Per-hour allowance for small tools, consumables, or equipment provided to this employee that isn't billed separately to a job. What to enter: Estimate from your annual tools/small-equipment budget divided by total field labor hours.
Overhead Recovery Markup
What it means: Your company's total annual indirect overhead: office staff salaries, software/subscriptions, office rent/utilities, unassigned vehicles, legal/accounting, marketing. This should not include job-site (general conditions) costs. What to enter: Use your annual income statement's SG&A total.
What it means: The total field labor hours your company expects to bill across all jobs in a year; this spreads your overhead pool across actual production. What to enter: Use last year's total billable hours, or estimate as (number of field employees × ~2,000 hours/year).
What it means: The profit margin (not markup) you want built into your bill rate, expressed as a percentage of the final bill rate. For example, a 12% margin means 12 cents of every billed dollar is profit after covering burdened cost and overhead. What to enter: Your target margin percentage; check your last few jobs' actual margins if you're not sure what's realistic.
Recommended Bill Rate
$0
True Burdened Cost
$0
Cost Stack Chart
Preview
Full Line-Item Breakdown
| Line Item | Amount |
|---|
The full line-item breakdown is available with a paid ClaimDuke unlock: visit claimduke.com to purchase a report.
Methodology:
Property Defect, Loss & Scope Estimating Calculator
Calculates Actual Cash Value vs. Replacement Cost Value with depreciation, plus a full multi-trade scope with soft-cost multipliers for adjusters, forensic inspectors and property managers. This calculator uses the replacement-cost-minus-depreciation approach; some states define ACV differently, a growing number restrict depreciating labor cost specifically, and a few regulate how and when withheld replacement-cost depreciation must be paid out once repairs are complete. Check your state's ACV rule ↓
ACV / RCV Depreciation
Soft Cost Multiplier
Replacement Cost & Depreciation
What it means: The total square footage of the building or area that sustained the loss or defect. What to enter: Measure from as-built drawings, an inspection report, or a field measurement of the damaged area only (not the whole building, unless the whole building is affected).
What it means: The current cost to rebuild this type of space per square foot, using today's labor and material costs, not what it originally cost to build. What to enter: Use a regional cost-estimating database (e.g., RSMeans, Marshall & Swift) or recent comparable bids for similar construction type and quality in your area.
What it means: The effective age of the damaged component or system: how old it functionally is, accounting for maintenance and condition, which may differ from its actual calendar age. What to enter: Use an inspector's assessed effective age, not necessarily the building's original construction date.
What it means: The total expected useful life of this building component or system before it would need full replacement anyway (e.g., roughly 40 years for a roof, 15 years for HVAC). What to enter: Reference standard depreciation life tables (e.g., insurance industry life-expectancy guides) for the specific component.
Multi-Trade Scope & Soft Costs
What it means: The sum of all direct construction/repair costs across every trade needed to fix the loss: framing, roofing, electrical, plumbing, finishes and so on. What to enter: This defaults to the Replacement Cost Value calculated above, but you should replace it with an actual multi-trade estimate or contractor bid once you have one.
What it means: Additional soft costs for engineering assessments, architectural drawings and municipal permit fees, as a percentage of hard cost. What to enter: 5–10% is typical for standard repairs; complex or structural work may run higher; check local permit fee schedules and typical A/E fee percentages.
What it means: A reserve percentage added to hard costs to cover unforeseen conditions discovered during repair: hidden damage, code upgrades and similar. What to enter: 10% is a common industry default for well-defined scope; use a higher percentage for older buildings or when pre-repair investigation was limited.
Actual Cash Value (ACV)
$0
Total Scope Estimate
$0
Value Breakdown Chart
Preview
Full Line-Item Breakdown
| Line Item | Amount |
|---|
The full line-item breakdown is available with a paid ClaimDuke unlock: visit claimduke.com to purchase a report.
Methodology:
Dispute, Litigation & Interest Impact Calculator
Accrues pre/post-judgment statutory interest and nets liquidated damages against extended general conditions claims to establish a settlement range. The rate and compounding below are whatever you enter; statutory interest varies by state. Check your state's interest rate ↓
Statutory Interest
LD vs. Extended GC Offset
Statutory Interest Accumulator
What it means: The unpaid dollar amount that is accruing interest: an unpaid pay application, a retainage balance, or a court/arbitration judgment amount. What to enter: The exact unpaid balance as of the date interest begins accruing.
What it means: The interest rate that applies by law or contract to this unpaid balance, expressed as an annual percentage. What to enter: Usually set by state statute (prejudgment/postjudgment interest rate) or by your contract's late-payment clause; check your state's prompt payment act or your contract terms for the exact rate.
What it means: The number of calendar days interest has been accruing. What to enter: Count from the date payment was due (or the judgment was entered) through today or another cutoff date you choose.
What it means: How the interest compounds. "Simple" calculates interest once on the original principal only. "Compound" calculates interest on principal plus previously accrued interest, recalculated either monthly or annually. What to enter: Check your state's statute or contract language; many states use simple interest for prejudgment amounts and only allow compounding post-judgment.
Liquidated Damages vs. Extended GC Offset
What it means: The daily liquidated damages rate written into your contract that the owner is assessing against you for late completion (a fixed dollar figure specified in the contract, not something you calculate). What to enter: Copy the exact $/day figure from your contract's liquidated damages clause.
What it means: The number of days of delay the owner has actually assessed liquidated damages for. What to enter: Check the owner's formal LD assessment notice or withheld-payment documentation; this may differ from your own delay day count.
What it means: Your own daily extended general conditions rate, the same figure used in the Delay & Overhead calculator, is what it actually costs you per day to be delayed. What to enter: Reuse your Daily Field Overhead Rate from the first calculator, or recalculate from your general conditions budget.
What it means: The number of delay days you are claiming as excusable/compensable and attributing to the owner. What to enter: Use your own delay analysis's claimed day count, which you'll net against the owner's LD assessment above.
Interest Accrued
$0
Net LD/GC Offset
$0
Exposure Chart
Preview
Full Line-Item Breakdown
| Line Item | Amount |
|---|
The full line-item breakdown is available with a paid ClaimDuke unlock: visit claimduke.com to purchase a report.
Methodology:
Construction Site Injury: Third-Party Damages Calculator
Estimates a third-party personal-injury settlement range for a construction-site accident, using the special-damages + general-damages (multiplier or per-diem) method, netted against comparative-negligence offset. Workers' comp exclusivity, third-party contribution rules and OSHA-violation weight vary sharply by state. Check your state's construction-injury rules ↓
Special + General Damages
Multiplier / Per-Diem Method
Comparative-Negligence Offset
Scope note: This calculator estimates a third-party claim only (a GC, property owner, subcontractor, or equipment manufacturer other than the injured worker's own direct employer). It does not calculate workers' compensation benefits, which are a no-fault, statutory schedule set by each state's workers' comp agency, not something this tool computes. Answer the question below first; it determines whether this calculator applies to your situation at all.
Step 1: Who Is the Claim Against?
What it means: In every state, a worker's own direct employer is shielded from an ordinary negligence lawsuit by workers' comp exclusivity. That's the core trade-off of the workers' comp system. This calculator is built for the other scenario: a third party on the same job site whose own negligence contributed to the injury. What to enter: If you're unsure whether the party you're evaluating counts as a "statutory employer" (a GC can sometimes be treated as one), check your state's construction-injury reference above; it varies by state and this calculator can't determine that legal question for you.
Special Damages (Economic)
What it means: Medical costs already billed for this injury: ER, surgery, hospital stay, physical therapy to date. What to enter: Total from itemized medical bills and the medical-payment ledger, not just what insurance paid.
What it means: Reasonably certain future medical costs: additional surgery, ongoing PT, durable medical equipment, future care. What to enter: A treating physician's or life-care planner's estimate; a rough placeholder is fine for an early estimate, but a real settlement figure needs a documented medical opinion.
What it means: Actual gross wages lost since the injury, from missed work. What to enter: Pay stubs or an employer wage-verification letter covering the missed period, times the applicable pay rate.
What it means: The present value of reduced future earning ability, for a worker who can't return to the same job or trade at the same capacity. What to enter: Usually requires a vocational expert and economist's report for a real claim; leave at 0 for a full-recovery injury with no permanent work restriction.
What it means: Damage to personal property in the same incident (tools, a personal vehicle if it was an equipment-involved accident, etc.). What to enter: Repair/replacement cost; leave at 0 if not applicable.
General Damages (Non-Economic)
What it means: Two conventional (not legally mandated) ways insurers and attorneys estimate pain-and-suffering value. The multiplier method scales your special damages by a severity factor; the per-diem method assigns a daily dollar value from injury date through maximum medical improvement. What to enter: Either is a starting negotiating estimate, not a formula a court is required to use; pick whichever your state's practitioners more commonly reference, or run both and compare.
What it means: A severity-scaled factor applied to special damages: lower (1.5–2) for a soft-tissue, fully-recovered injury; higher (4–5+) for permanent impairment, disfigurement, or a catastrophic injury. What to enter: There's no fixed rule; this is a negotiating convention, not a statute. Higher multipliers need more documentation (permanency ratings, expert opinion) to be credible in a real negotiation.
Comparative / Contributory Negligence
What it means: The percentage of fault attributable to the injured worker's own conduct, which most states' comparative-negligence rules use to proportionally reduce the recovery. What to enter: A handful of states use pure contributory negligence instead, where any fault at all (even 1%) can bar recovery entirely rather than just reducing it, and a few others use a "modified" comparative rule with a 50% or 51% bar rather than a pure proportional reduction. Check your state's rule above before relying on a simple percentage reduction here.
Estimated Net Value
$0
Gross Damages (Before Negligence Offset)
$0
Damages Chart
Preview
Full Line-Item Breakdown
| Line Item | Amount |
|---|
The full line-item breakdown is available with a paid ClaimDuke unlock: visit claimduke.com to purchase a report.
Methodology:
Excel and Word report builders for this calculator are still being built out; CSV and the printable PDF report both work today. Check back as this category's build-out continues.
Simple, transparent pricing
Every free calculation gives you a real, live total. Paying unlocks the defensible, presentable version you hand to a client, carrier, or court.
| Feature | Free | $19 / report | $29+ / month |
|---|---|---|---|
| High-level total & live interactive chart | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Full line-item breakdown with sub-totals | N/A | ✓ | ✓ |
| White-labeled PDF with your logo & header | Watermarked only | ✓ | ✓ |
| Formatted Excel workbook: live formulas, editable, your logo & client info | N/A | 1 report | Unlimited |
| Matching Word / PDF formal report | N/A | ✓ | ✓ |
| Scenario Comparison sheet (Conservative / Likely / Aggressive positions) | N/A | N/A | ✓ Monthly-only |
| Industry-standard citations (Eichleay, MCAA, etc.) | N/A | ✓ | ✓ |
| Unlimited reports across all 4 calculators | N/A | 1 report | ✓ |
| Price | $0 | $19 | $29+ |
Excel and PDF/Word exports are generated live from your own session values, not a static template. Every number, formula and citation reflects exactly what you entered.
Add your logo or letterhead to exported reports Optional
Report Branding
Optional: applied to every Excel, Word and PDF report you export (free samples included). Nothing here is uploaded anywhere; it stays in your browser for this session only. Two ways to brand your reports below: a simple logo, or your full company letterhead; pick whichever is faster for you, or use both (see how they combine below).
Always used on your Excel workbook. Also used on your PDF and Word exports, unless you add a letterhead template below, which takes over as the full-page background there instead.
OR, use a full letterhead template instead, for PDF & Word
Already have a company letterhead? Upload it as a full-page image or PDF (matched to the page size above) and it'll be used as the background on your PDF and Word exports instead of the logo above; no need to add a logo and header separately for those two. Your Excel workbook doesn't use the letterhead (a full-page background isn't a practical fit for a spreadsheet); it always uses the company logo field above, so upload one there too if you want your branding on the Excel export as well. Processed entirely in your browser, exactly like the rest of Report Branding: your file is never uploaded to our servers. Word rendering can vary a little by version (Word for Mac, older desktop Word and Word Online may position or scale a full-page background slightly differently), so always open and check the exported .docx before sending it out; the PDF export is more consistent since it's built directly from your browser's print engine.
Every export is a real, fully editable file: the Excel workbook keeps live formulas and the Word document is a standard .docx, so you can also delete or rewrite anything you don't need after downloading, not just add to it.
State reference: interest, ACV, delay, labor-burden & injury rules All 50 states
State Reference: Interest, ACV, Delay-Claim, Labor-Burden & Property-Loss Rules
Statutory prejudgment/judgment interest rates, accrual start dates, Actual Cash Value rules, delay-claim rules (no-damages-for-delay clause enforceability, filing deadlines), labor-burden rules (state unemployment insurance, workers' comp rating approach, prevailing-wage law) and the newer statutory property-loss layer (labor-depreciation restrictions, recoverable-depreciation holdback rules) all vary by state and often change over time. This panel doesn't calculate anything or plug a number into your report; it shows the citation, methodology and a direct link to the official live source (or case law) so you can confirm the current rule for your state yourself. Research is ongoing; states or categories not yet researched are marked below.
"Claim type" affects when interest starts accruing (below), not the base rate card above it. Which type actually applies to your situation is a legal characterization question, not something this tool can determine for you; if you're not sure, ask counsel. Most states sort this by whether the claim is a breach of contract or a property-damage/tort claim, but a few (California and Kentucky among them) instead ask whether the damages are "liquidated" (fixed and certain) or "unliquidated"; where that's the case, the card below explains it.
Choose a state above to see its interest-rate and ACV reference info.
Quick Reference: Statutory Interest Rate, All 50 States
Headline rate only, for every state at a glance. Full statute citation, accrual-date rules, notes on floating/resetting rates, and a direct link to the official source are available for each state above (full detail requires a free email unlock). This table updates as research is refreshed; always confirm the current figure with the official source before relying on it.
| State | Statutory Interest Rate |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 7.5% / year, fixed (unless the contract sets its own rate) |
| Alaska | Floating, ~3 points above the Fed 12th District discount rate, reset every Jan. 2 |
| Arizona | Lesser of 10% / year or (prime rate + 1%) |
| Arkansas | 6% / year default (pre-judgment, contract silent); Fed primary credit rate + 2% or contract rate, whichever is greater (post-judgment) |
| California | 10% / year, fixed |
| Colorado | 8% / year, compounded annually |
| Connecticut | Up to 10% / year, discretionary |
| Delaware | 5 points above the Fed discount rate (contract default, capped); same formula or contract rate, whichever is less (post-judgment) |
| Florida | 8.06% / year (effective Jul 1, 2026 through Sep 30, 2026) |
| Georgia | Prime rate + 3% (judgments); 7% (prejudgment default) |
| Hawaii | 10% / year, fixed (both pre-judgment on written instruments and post-judgment) |
| Idaho | 12% / year fixed (contract default, pre-judgment); floating 5% + T-bill-based base rate (post-judgment) |
| Illinois | 9% / year general postjudgment (varies by claim/debtor type) |
| Indiana | 8% / year (or the contract rate, capped at 8%) |
| Iowa | Floating, 1-yr Treasury constant maturity + 2% (both pre- and post-judgment) |
| Kansas | 10% / year, fixed (contract claims, pre-judgment); floating, prime-linked (post-judgment) |
| Kentucky | 8% / year default before judgment; 6% / year compounded annually after judgment |
| Louisiana | Floating, ~3.25 points above the Fed discount rate, reset every January 1 |
| Maine | Floating, 1-yr T-bill + 3% (pre-judgment, no contract rate); 1-yr T-bill + 6% or contract rate, whichever is greater (post-judgment) |
| Maryland | 10% / year, fixed |
| Massachusetts | 12% / year, fixed (or the contract's rate) |
| Michigan | 3.959% / year (as of July 1, 2026, resets twice yearly) |
| Minnesota | 4% (judgments ≤$50,000) or 10% (judgments over $50,000), fixed |
| Mississippi | 8% / year default (contract silent); judgment bears the contract's own rate if contract-based |
| Missouri | 9% / year, fixed (or the contract rate, if higher) |
| Montana | Floating, Fed prime loan rate + 3% (both pre- and post-judgment, simple only) |
| Nebraska | Floating rate, currently 5.970%/year, certified twice yearly (most contract claims); flat 12%/year alternative for written instruments |
| Nevada | Floating, prime rate (largest NV bank) + 2%, reset every Jan. 1 and July 1 |
| New Hampshire | 1-yr T-bill + 2% (judgments/prejudgment, simple); 10% flat default for other business contracts |
| New Jersey | 4.5% (Special Civil Part) / 6.5% (above that limit) for 2026 |
| New Mexico | Up to 15% / year (contract default, no written rate); 8.75% fixed post-judgment (up to 15% for tort/bad-faith) |
| New York | 9% / year, fixed |
| North Carolina | 8% / year, fixed |
| North Dakota | 6% / year default (pre-judgment, contract silent); Wall St. Journal prime + 3% floating, rounded up (post-judgment) |
| Ohio | 7% / year (2026, resets annually) |
| Oklahoma | 6% / year simple (pre-judgment, contract claims); Wall St. Journal prime + 2% floating (post-judgment) |
| Oregon | 9% / year, fixed |
| Pennsylvania | 6% / year, fixed |
| Rhode Island | 12% / year, fixed (compounds on prior prejudgment interest at judgment) |
| South Carolina | 8.75% / year (pre-judgment, fixed); 10.75%/year compounded annually (post-judgment, floats, effective Jan. 15, 2026 through Jan. 14, 2027) |
| South Dakota | 10% / year, fixed ('Category B') for both pre- and post-judgment on contract claims |
| Tennessee | Floating, reset twice yearly (postjudgment); currently 8.75%/year for Jul 1 to Dec 31, 2026; up to 10%/year (discretionary prejudgment) |
| Texas | Prime rate, floor 5% / ceiling 15% |
| Utah | 10% / year, fixed (contract default, pre-judgment); federal postjudgment rate + 2% floating (post-judgment) |
| Vermont | 12% / year, fixed |
| Virginia | 6% / year, fixed (or the contract's rate, if higher and lawful) |
| Washington | 12% / year (in practice, statutory floor usually controls) |
| West Virginia | 2 points above the Fed 5th District secondary discount rate, capped 9% / floored 4% (pre- and post-judgment, simple) |
| Wisconsin | 5% / year (prejudgment); floating, reset twice yearly (postjudgment) |
| Wyoming | 7% / year, fixed (pre-judgment, contract silent); 10% / year, fixed (post-judgment, unless contract rate applies) |
Quick Reference: Property Loss & ACV Rules, All 50 States
Headline summaries only, for every state at a glance. Full detail, citations and source links are available for each state above (full detail requires a free email unlock). Always confirm the current rule with the official source or with counsel before relying on it.
| State | ACV Rule | Statutory Labor-Depreciation Rule | Depreciation Holdback Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Replacement cost minus depreciation (by insurance regulation) | Alabama regulation defines the ACV calculation method and requires an itemized depreciation worksheet, but does not restrict labor depreciation. | No Alabama statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying out withheld depreciation once repairs are complete. |
| Alaska | Not established: no controlling case or statute found (confirmed by a second, more rigorous research pass) | Alaska has no statute or regulation currently in force restricting labor depreciation; a 2024 bulletin that would have prohibited it was withdrawn in January 2025. | No Alaska statute or regulation was found specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Arizona | Policy-language-dependent: broad evidence rule only as a default | Arizona has no insurance-code statute or adopted regulation defining ACV methodology or restricting labor depreciation; the rule comes from case law construing undefined policy language. | No Arizona statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying withheld depreciation once repairs are complete. |
| Arkansas | Replacement cost minus depreciation (materials only, labor cannot be depreciated) | Arkansas has a statute that permits, rather than restricts, depreciation of labor, subject to a Commissioner-approved policy disclosure and a written explanation requirement. | No Arkansas statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying withheld depreciation once repairs are complete. |
| California | Replacement cost minus depreciation | California statute and regulation together define ACV and expressly prohibit depreciating labor. | California statute sets a minimum window, at least 12 months and up to 36 months during a declared emergency, for the insured to complete repairs and collect withheld replacement-cost depreciation, with mandatory good-cause extensions. |
| Colorado | Broad evidence rule | Colorado has no statute or regulation defining ACV methodology or restricting labor depreciation; the rule comes from a federal district court decision applying Colorado contract law. | Colorado statute sets a minimum 365-day window after additional living expense coverage ends for the insured to replace property and collect recoverable depreciation, extended to up to 36 months for wildfire-disaster total losses. |
| Connecticut | Replacement cost minus depreciation (statutory) | Connecticut's standard fire policy statute defines ACV as replacement cost minus reasonable depreciation for wear and tear, but does not expressly address or restrict labor depreciation. | No Connecticut statute specifically regulating the timing or process for paying withheld depreciation after repairs was found. |
| Delaware | Fair market value, broad-evidence style (replacement cost is evidence, not the deciding measure) | No Delaware statute or regulation defining ACV methodology or restricting labor depreciation was found. | No Delaware statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying withheld depreciation once repairs are complete. |
| Florida | Broad evidence rule (with a statutory wrinkle on labor) | No insurance-code statute defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation, the rule comes from case law. | Florida statute regulates payout timing directly: total losses get full RCV with no depreciation holdback, and partial losses get remaining funds paid as repair work is performed. |
| Georgia | Relaxed evidentiary standard for household/personal property (narrower than a full broad-evidence doctrine) | No statute or regulation found that defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Hawaii | Not established: no controlling insurance-context case or statute found (confirmed by a second, more rigorous research pass) | No statute or regulation found that defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation, the issue remains an open common-law question in Hawaii. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Idaho | Policy-language-driven: depreciation applies when the policy defines ACV that way (confirmed directly from the primary opinion) | No statute or regulation found that defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation, Idaho relies on the common-law broad evidence rule. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Illinois | Replacement cost minus depreciation (statutory), labor cannot be depreciated | No Illinois insurance-code statute or regulation bans labor depreciation, but the Illinois Supreme Court has held that labor cannot be depreciated when the policy leaves ACV and depreciation undefined, effectively producing a strong statewide rule. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Indiana | Broad evidence rule | No statute or regulation found that defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation, Indiana relies on the common-law broad evidence rule. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Iowa | Broad evidence rule | Iowa has adopted an administrative rule that statutorily defines ACV as replacement cost less depreciation (or market value) and requires the insurer to provide a depreciation worksheet on request, but it does not restrict labor depreciation specifically. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Kansas | Split by loss type: face policy value for total losses; repair cost (no depreciation) for partial losses | No statute restricts labor depreciation, but a 1983 Kansas Insurance Department bulletin interpreting a state supreme court case held that ACV means repair or replacement cost without any depreciation deduction unless the policy specifically defines depreciation, and a later regulation requires depreciation deductions to be itemized. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Kentucky | Broad evidence rule (with a repair/replacement condition-precedent nuance) | Kentucky has adopted a regulation that statutorily defines ACV as replacement cost less depreciation and expressly states depreciation may include labor if the policy provides for it, so Kentucky's rule permits rather than restricts labor depreciation at the regulatory level, though a federal appellate decision applying Kentucky law has gone the other way for undefined policies. | No statute or regulation found that regulates timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation. |
| Louisiana | Replacement cost minus depreciation | Louisiana has an insurance-code statute governing ACV depreciation disclosure and barring certain deductions, but it does not prohibit depreciating labor. | Louisiana statute regulates the condition an insurer may impose before releasing withheld depreciation, but does not set a deadline for paying it out. |
| Maine | Replacement cost minus physical depreciation (statutory formula since 1989) | Maine has a statute defining actual cash value as replacement cost minus physical depreciation, but it does not address labor depreciation specifically. | No Maine statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or mechanics of paying out withheld recoverable depreciation was found. |
| Maryland | Broad evidence rule | Maryland does not currently have an adopted statute or regulation restricting labor depreciation in ACV, though one has been proposed and a related bill was introduced in 2026. | No Maryland statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or mechanics of paying out withheld recoverable depreciation was found. |
| Massachusetts | Broad evidence rule | Massachusetts has a statute permitting an ACV loss-settlement basis tied to fair market value, but it does not address depreciation of labor cost. | No Massachusetts statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or mechanics of paying out withheld recoverable depreciation was found. |
| Michigan | Broad evidence rule | Michigan regulates depreciation of labor and other nontangible items through a Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) bulletin issued under its unfair-policy-provision authority, not a standalone statute. | No Michigan statute or DIFS bulletin specifically governing the timing or mechanics of paying out withheld recoverable depreciation was found. |
| Minnesota | Broad evidence rule | Minnesota does not have a statute defining ACV depreciation or restricting labor depreciation; the state follows a case-by-case common-law rule. | No Minnesota statute specifically governing the timing or mechanics of paying out withheld recoverable depreciation was found. |
| Mississippi | Replacement cost oriented (narrower than a full replacement-cost-minus-depreciation formula; labor should not be depreciated) | Mississippi does not prohibit labor depreciation by statute; a Department of Insurance bulletin advises only that it be clearly disclosed in the policy. | No Mississippi statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or mechanics of paying out withheld recoverable depreciation was found. |
| Missouri | Fair-market-value differential (not a named broad evidence rule, not a fixed depreciation formula) | Missouri does not have a statute restricting labor depreciation; the rule comes from case law applying the state's fire-policy valuation statute. | No Missouri statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or mechanics of paying out withheld recoverable depreciation was found. |
| Montana | Broad evidence rule for partial losses; face policy value for total losses | No Montana statute or regulation specifically restricts or bans depreciation of labor when calculating ACV. Montana has a general insurance-code indemnity statute, but it does not address labor versus materials depreciation. | No Montana statute or regulation was found that specifically governs the timing or process for paying out withheld recoverable depreciation on a replacement-cost policy once repairs are completed. |
| Nebraska | Broad evidence rule: labor may be depreciated even without express policy language | No Nebraska statute or regulation defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts depreciation of labor. The rule in Nebraska comes from case law, not statute. | No Nebraska statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost policies was found. |
| Nevada | Replacement cost minus depreciation | No Nevada statute or regulation defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts depreciation of labor for general property claims. Nevada's ACV rule is a common-law rule (replacement cost less depreciation), and the one statutory no-depreciation provision that exists is limited to manufactured/mobile home total-loss coverage, not property claims generally. | No Nevada statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost policies was found. |
| New Hampshire | Broad evidence rule | No New Hampshire statute or regulation defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts depreciation of labor. New Hampshire's ACV rule is a common-law broad evidence rule, and no case law or statute addressing labor depreciation specifically was found. | No New Hampshire statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost policies was found. |
| New Jersey | Broad evidence rule | No New Jersey statute or regulation defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts depreciation of labor for general property claims. New Jersey's only codified ACV/depreciation methodology found applies to automobile total-loss claims, not property claims. | No New Jersey statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost property policies was found. |
| New Mexico | Residential claims: no depreciation deduction allowed (by statute). Other property: fair market value, capped at replacement cost. | No New Mexico statute or regulation defines how ACV must be calculated for general property claims or restricts depreciation of labor. A regulatory ACV definition exists but applies only to creditor-placed insurance, not general homeowners or commercial property claims. | No New Mexico statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost property policies was found. |
| New York | Broad evidence rule | New York regulation defines ACV by rule for property claims generally, as the lesser of reasonable repair cost or replacement cost with a substantially identical item, but it does not separately address depreciation of labor versus materials. | No New York statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost policies once repairs are completed was found. |
| North Carolina | Broad evidence rule | No North Carolina statute or NCDOI bulletin or rule defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts depreciation of labor. The rule allowing labor depreciation in North Carolina comes entirely from a state Supreme Court decision, not from statute or regulation. | No North Carolina statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost policies was found. |
| North Dakota | Broad evidence rule / fair-negotiation standard (resolved: the case is real; an earlier pass had it as an unverifiable citation) | No North Dakota insurance-code statute or regulation was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts depreciation of labor. | No North Dakota statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying out recoverable (withheld) depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Ohio | Replacement cost minus depreciation; labor generally not depreciated | Ohio Admin. Code 3901-1-54 statutorily defines how ACV must be calculated on fire and extended coverage property claims and requires insurers to disclose depreciation deductions on request, but it does not itself ban depreciating labor. | No specific timing or process requirement for paying out recoverable depreciation after repairs are completed was found in Ohio Admin. Code 3901-1-54 or elsewhere in Ohio's insurance code. |
| Oklahoma | Broad evidence rule (labor may be depreciated as part of an integrated product) | No Oklahoma statute or Oklahoma Insurance Department (OID) regulation was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. | No Oklahoma statute or OID regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying out recoverable depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Oregon | No single formula; court/appraiser discretion (functions like a broad evidence rule) | No Oregon statute or administrative rule was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation for property claims. | No Oregon statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying out recoverable depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Pennsylvania | Replacement cost minus depreciation | No Pennsylvania statute or regulation was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. | No Pennsylvania statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying out recoverable depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Rhode Island | Replacement cost minus depreciation (by binding insurance regulation) | Rhode Island regulation 230-RICR-20-40-2.9(B) statutorily defines how ACV must be calculated on replacement-cost fire and extended coverage property policies and requires disclosure of depreciation deductions on request, but it does not restrict labor depreciation specifically. | No specific timing or process requirement for paying out recoverable depreciation after repairs are completed was found in Rhode Island's regulation. |
| South Carolina | Replacement cost minus depreciation (labor may be depreciated) | No South Carolina statute or regulation was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. | No South Carolina statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying out recoverable depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| South Dakota | Broad evidence rule | No South Dakota statute or administrative rule was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. | No South Dakota statute or regulation was found governing the timing or process for paying out recoverable depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Tennessee | Broad evidence rule: materials can be depreciated, labor cannot | Tennessee has a regulatory ACV-calculation rule, but the ban on depreciating labor comes from a state Supreme Court decision interpreting it, not from statutory text that itself singles out labor. | No Tennessee statute or regulation found that sets a deadline or notice requirement for paying out withheld depreciation once repairs are completed. |
| Texas | Broad evidence rule | No Texas statute defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation; the law is unsettled and driven by conflicting federal court decisions applying Texas law plus a non-binding 1998 TDI bulletin. | No Texas statute or regulation found governing the timing of paying out withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Utah | Replacement cost minus depreciation (weakly sourced: no case or statute found; confirmed by a second, more rigorous research pass) | Utah has a regulatory ACV-calculation rule requiring depreciation documentation, but no provision restricting depreciation of labor specifically. | No Utah regulation found addressing timing or notice requirements for paying withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Vermont | Broad evidence rule | Vermont regulators treat depreciating labor cost as a per se unfair claim settlement practice under the state's insurance trade-practices statute. | No Vermont-specific statute or regulation found governing the deadline or process for paying out withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Virginia | Replacement cost minus depreciation (regulatory) | Virginia's insurance regulation sets a basic ACV and replacement-cost payment structure, and the Bureau of Insurance has separately taken the position that labor and other nontangible costs cannot be depreciated. | No Virginia statute or regulation found governing the deadline or process for paying out withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Washington | Fair market value (not depreciation-formula, not broad-evidence) | Washington has a regulation expressly prohibiting depreciation of labor cost, with a narrow exception for labor embedded in the cost of manufactured materials. | Washington's Insurance Commissioner appears to have addressed a deadline related to withheld depreciation on building-repair claims, but the specific citation, deadline length and notice requirements could not be verified from a working primary source in this research. |
| West Virginia | Not established: conflicting, unresolved authority (a second research pass narrowed but did not resolve this) | No West Virginia insurance-code statute or adopted regulation was found that statutorily defines ACV calculation or restricts depreciating labor for property claims. | No West Virginia statute or regulation found governing the deadline or process for paying out withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Wisconsin | Broad evidence rule | No Wisconsin statute or regulation found that defines ACV calculation or restricts depreciating labor for property claims. | No Wisconsin statute or regulation found governing the deadline or process for paying out withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
| Wyoming | Not established: no controlling case or statute found (confirmed by a second, more rigorous research pass, very high confidence) | No Wyoming statute or regulation found that defines ACV calculation or restricts depreciating labor for property claims. | No Wyoming statute or regulation found governing the deadline or process for paying out withheld depreciation after repairs are completed. |
Quick Reference: Delay-Claim Rules, All 50 States
Headline summaries only, for every state at a glance. Full detail, citations and source links are available for each state above (full detail requires a free email unlock). Always confirm the current rule with the official source or with counsel before relying on it.
| State | "No Damages for Delay" Clause Enforceability | Construction Contract Claim Filing Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Enforceable and strictly construed, with four recognized exceptions | 6 years for a written contract claim |
| Alaska | Not established outside highway construction: Alaska courts haven't addressed the general rule | 3 years for a contract action, unless waived by contract |
| Arizona | Not established: no controlling Arizona case identifying specific exceptions was found after a genuine search | 6 years for a written contract executed in Arizona |
| Arkansas | Enforceable with restrained approval, but doesn't protect against the beneficiary's own willful delay and may not bind third parties | 5 years to enforce a written obligation |
| California | Void by statute for public works: a delay clause can't waive damages for unreasonable, uncontemplated delay | 4 years for a written contract claim |
| Colorado | Not established: no Colorado-specific case or statute found after a genuine search | 3 years for a contract action |
| Connecticut | Enforceable, with an active-interference exception requiring an affirmative, willful act, not mere carelessness | 6 years for an account or a simple, implied, or written contract |
| Delaware | Enforceable but strictly construed, with an exception for the owner's own negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct | 3 years generally; written contracts of $100,000+ may extend up to 20 years if the contract itself says so |
| Florida | Generally enforceable, with an active-interference/bad-faith exception | 5 years for an action founded on a written instrument |
| Georgia | Enforceable only if the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific; a bare 'extension of time' clause won't bar damages | 6 years for an action on a simple written contract |
| Hawaii | Not established: no Hawaii court has addressed the enforceability of these clauses | 6 years for a contract action, written or oral |
| Idaho | Enforceable, with an exception for uncontemplated delay or active/direct interference by the owner | 5 years for an action on a written contract |
| Illinois | Enforceable but construed strictly, with two recognized exceptions | 10 years for a written contract claim |
| Indiana | Enforceable, including against a subcontractor's acceleration claim absent an executed change order | 10 years for a written contract signed on or after September 1, 1982 (20 years for older contracts) |
| Iowa | Enforceable, with a strict active-interference exception requiring willfulness and bad faith | 10 years for a written contract claim |
| Kansas | Void by statute for public construction contracts; no Kansas case law found on private contracts | 5 years for a written contract claim |
| Kentucky | Void by statute: a delay clause can't waive the right to recover costs or damages for owner-caused delay | 10 years for a written contract executed after July 15, 2014 (15 years for older written contracts) |
| Louisiana | Void by statute for public contracts; unclear (no case law found) for private contracts | 10 years for a written contract claim (prescription, in Louisiana's civil-law terminology) |
| Maine | Enforceable: a clause limiting the contractor's remedy for delay to a time extension has been upheld | 6 years for a civil action generally, including an ordinary contract claim |
| Maryland | Enforceable, with only narrow, hard-to-prove exceptions | 3 years for a general civil action, including an ordinary written contract |
| Massachusetts | Enforceable on public contracts absent arbitrary or capricious conduct, but owner waiver and denied-extension exceptions recognized | 6 years for a contract action |
| Michigan | Enforceable, but not where the parties didn't contemplate the extent of delay actually experienced | 6 years for breach of contract generally; separate 6-year/10-year cap for claims against a builder |
| Minnesota | Void by statute for public contracts; unclear (no case law found) for private contracts | 6 years for a contract action |
| Mississippi | Enforceable and strictly construed, with four recognized exceptions (the framework Alabama later borrowed) | 3 years for a claim without its own specifically prescribed period, covering an ordinary contract claim |
| Missouri | Void by statute for public works; likely enforceable with an active-interference exception for private contracts, per a federal prediction of state law | 10 years for a written instrument for the payment of money or property |
| Montana | Not established: Montana courts haven't expressly addressed the enforceability of these clauses | 8 years for a written contract, covenant, obligation, or liability |
| Nebraska | Not established: no Nebraska-specific case or statute found after a genuine search | 5 years for a written contract or promise |
| Nevada | Void by statute for delays within the owner's control, on both public and private contracts, plus a common-law framework for other cases | 6 years for a written contract claim |
| New Hampshire | Not yet directly addressed for a no-damages-for-delay clause specifically, but a century-old prevention doctrine supports an active-interference-style exception | 3 years for a personal action, including an ordinary contract claim |
| New Jersey | Void by statute for public contracts when the public entity caused the delay; generally enforceable in private contracts absent bad faith or tortious intent | 6 years for a contract claim not under seal |
| New Mexico | Not established: no New Mexico case or statute found after a genuine search | 6 years for a written contract claim |
| New York | Enforceable, but subject to four recognized exceptions | 6 years for breach of a written or oral contract |
| North Carolina | Void by statute in public prime contracts; otherwise enforceable but construed narrowly against blanket immunity | 3 years for a contract action, express or implied |
| North Dakota | Enforceable, with an active-interference exception; a construction manager's directive on work methods was enough to trigger it | 6 years for a written contract claim |
| Ohio | Void by statute when the delay is the owner's (or a higher-tier contractor's) fault | 6 years for a written contract claim |
| Oklahoma | Enforceable, with an exception for inequitable conduct by the party invoking the clause | 5 years for a written contract, agreement, or promise |
| Oregon | Void by statute for public improvement contracts when the contracting agency caused the delay; unresolved for private contracts | 6 years for a contract action |
| Pennsylvania | Not enforceable against a government agency where the agency committed constructive fraud or active interference | 4 years for a written contract claim |
| Rhode Island | Generally enforceable absent bad faith or tortious intent, with strict construction against the party invoking it | 10 years for a general civil action, including an ordinary contract claim |
| South Carolina | Generally valid, but described by South Carolina's own courts as a weak defense given four recognized exceptions | 3 years for a contract action |
| South Dakota | Not established: no South Dakota case or statute found after a genuine search | 6 years for a contract obligation or liability |
| Tennessee | Enforceable, even when results are harsh, with the standard four exceptions | 6 years for a contract action not otherwise expressly provided for |
| Texas | Enforceable, but subject to four recognized exceptions | 4 years for a written contract claim; separate 10-year statute of repose for construction improvements |
| Utah | Enforceable, with an exception for direct, active, or willful interference; parol evidence can't be used to show the delay was unreasonable | 6 years for a written contract claim |
| Vermont | Not established: no Vermont case or statute found after a genuine search | 6 years for a civil action, including an ordinary contract claim |
| Virginia | Void by statute: on public contracts outright, plus on subcontracts signed before work begins | 5 years for a signed written contract |
| Washington | Void by statute when the delay stems from the contractee's own acts or omissions | 6 years for a written contract claim |
| West Virginia | Not established: no West Virginia case or statute found after a genuine search | 10 years for a written contract signed by the party to be charged (5 years for other express or implied contracts) |
| Wisconsin | Enforceable even against uncontemplated delay, with exceptions for the engineer's fraud, bad faith, or gross incompetence | 6 years for a contract action |
| Wyoming | Unresolved: the one Wyoming case on point held the clause at issue wasn't actually a no-damages-for-delay provision | 10 years for a written contract claim |
Quick Reference: Labor-Burden Rules, All 50 States
Headline summaries only, for every state at a glance. Full detail, citations and source links are available for each state above (full detail requires a free email unlock). SUTA figures reset annually; always confirm the current figure with the official source before relying on it.
| State | State Unemployment Insurance (SUTA) | Workers' Comp Rating Approach | Prevailing-Wage Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | New-employer rate 2.7% (8.2% for construction), wage base $8,000 | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | No state prevailing-wage law (repealed 1980) |
| Alaska | Taxable wage base $54,200; employer rates 1.00% to 5.40% (2026) | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | State prevailing-wage law applies above $25,000 |
| Arizona | New-employer rate 2.0%, wage base $8,000 (2026) | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | No state prevailing-wage law; state law bars local ones |
| Arkansas | New-employer rate 2.0% (2025 figure), wage base $7,000 | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | No state prevailing-wage law (repealed 2017) |
| California | New-employer rate 3.4%, wage base $7,000, experience 1.5% to 6.2% | Independent bureau: WCIRB California (not NCCI) | State prevailing-wage law, Labor Code Section 1720 et seq. |
| Colorado | Taxable wage base $30,600 (2026); construction introductory rates 3.05% to 6.29% | NCCI advisory rates apply; Pinnacol is a competitive (not exclusive) state fund | State prevailing-wage law applies to contracts of $500,000 or more |
| Connecticut | New-employer rate 1.9%, wage base $27,000 (2026) | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | State prevailing-wage law, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53 |
| Delaware | New-employer rate 1.0%, wage base $14,500 (2026) | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | State prevailing-wage law, 29 Del. C. Section 6960 |
| Florida | Florida's new-employer reemployment tax rate is 2.7% on the first $7,000 in wages per employee. | Florida uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau. | Florida has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed its version in 1979. |
| Georgia | Georgia's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 2.7% of the first $9,500 in wages per employee. | Georgia uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau. | Georgia has no state prevailing-wage law for public construction contracts. |
| Hawaii | Hawaii's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 2.40% of the first $64,500 in wages per employee for 2026. | Hawaii uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau. | Hawaii requires prevailing wages on state and county construction contracts over $2,000. |
| Idaho | Idaho's standard new-employer unemployment tax rate is 1.000% for 2026. | Idaho uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau. | Idaho has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed its version in 1985. |
| Illinois | Illinois's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 3.35% of the first $14,250 in wages per employee for 2026. | Illinois uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau. | Illinois requires prevailing wages on essentially all public works contracts, with no minimum dollar threshold. |
| Indiana | Indiana's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 2.5% of the first $9,500 in wages per employee. | Indiana runs its own independent workers' compensation rating bureau rather than using NCCI directly. | Indiana has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed its Common Construction Wage Act effective July 1, 2015. |
| Iowa | Iowa's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 1.0%, drawn from Table D for 2026. | Iowa uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau. | Iowa has no state prevailing-wage law for public construction contracts. |
| Kansas | Kansas's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 1.75% of the first $15,100 in wages per employee. | Kansas uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau. | Kansas has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed its version in 1987. |
| Kentucky | Kentucky's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 2.7% of the first $12,000 in wages per employee for 2026. | Kentucky uses NCCI advisory rates, with a state-created competitive fund, KEMI, competing alongside private carriers. | Kentucky has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed it in 2017. |
| Louisiana | New employers pay a rate tied to their industry average (floor 1.00%, ceiling 6.20%); established employers range from 0.09% to 6.20%. The 2026 taxable wage base is $7,000 per employee. | Louisiana is an NCCI state. NCCI files advisory loss costs, which carriers load with their own expense factors to set final rates. | Louisiana has no state prevailing wage law. Its former statute was repealed in 1988, and no successor law has been enacted. |
| Maine | The combined new-employer rate for 2026 is 2.54% (2.23% base UI rate plus 0.14% CSSF and 0.17% UPAF assessments). Experienced employers range from 0.00% to 6.29% before those add-on assessments. | Maine is an NCCI state. NCCI publishes annual state advisory reports for Maine, and the state's Bureau of Insurance approved a 9.6% average decrease in NCCI-filed loss costs effective 2025. | Maine has a state prevailing wage law. It applies to state-funded construction contracts over $50,000. |
| Maryland | New employers pay between 1.0% and 2.6% depending on industry. Established employers under 2026's Table A range from 0.30% to 7.50%. The taxable wage base is $8,500, unchanged from 2025. | Maryland is an NCCI state. Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company, Maryland's state fund and largest workers' comp insurer, became a fully affiliated NCCI member effective January 1, 2023, and uses NCCI's rating methodology, experience mod and loss costs. | Maryland has a state prevailing wage law. It applies to state public works contracts of $500,000 or more (25% or more state funding for school construction projects). |
| Massachusetts | The 2026 new-employer rate is 2.42% for employers registered less than 3 years. Experienced employers range from about 0.94% to 5.24% (positive-rated) and 7.03% to 14.37% (negative-rated) under Schedule E, before a COVID-19 recovery assessment. The taxable wage base is $15,000, unchanged from 2025. | Massachusetts runs its own independent rating bureau rather than using NCCI: the Workers' Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts (WCRIBMA). | Massachusetts has a state prevailing wage law (M.G.L. Chapter 149, Sections 26-27H), applied broadly to public works with no clearly documented statewide dollar minimum. |
| Michigan | New employers pay 2.7% for their first two years of liability, with rates increasing in years three through five. Established employers range from 0.06% to 10.30%. The 2026 taxable wage base is $9,000 (some secondary sources cite $9,500; not fully reconciled). | Michigan does not use NCCI directly. Rates are set through the Compensation Advisory Organization of Michigan (CAOM), the state's own advisory and data organization, which also administers the assigned-risk placement facility. | Michigan has a state prevailing wage law again as of 2023. A 2018 repeal was reversed when Governor Whitmer signed legislation reinstating prevailing wage, effective around March 2024. |
| Minnesota | New employers are assigned an industry-based rate; for construction industries this generally runs from about 1.48% to 8.90% for 2026. Established employers range from 0.00% to 8.90%. The 2026 taxable wage base is $44,000, up $1,000 from 2025. | Minnesota does not use NCCI directly. Rating data and loss cost recommendations are handled by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Insurers Association (MWCIA), subject to Department of Commerce oversight. | Minnesota has a state prevailing wage law (Minn. Stat. Sections 177.41-177.44), covering state-funded construction and public works projects. |
| Mississippi | New employers pay 1.00% in their first year, 1.10% in their second year and 1.20% in the third year and thereafter (until experience-rated). Established employers range from 0.0% to 5.4%. The 2026 taxable wage base is $14,000, unchanged from 2025. | Mississippi is an NCCI state. NCCI publishes annual state advisory reports for Mississippi and files advisory loss costs used as the basis for insurer rates. | Mississippi has no state prevailing wage law. There is no state statute establishing prevailing wage requirements for public construction. |
| Missouri | The 2026 new-employer rate is 2.376% (1.00% for qualifying 501(c)(3) nonprofits). Established employers range from 0.0% to 6.0% before surcharges. The 2026 taxable wage base is $9,000, down $500 from 2025. | Missouri is an NCCI state. NCCI publishes annual state advisory reports and files advisory loss costs used as the basis for insurer rates in Missouri. | Missouri has a state prevailing wage law (RSMo Sections 290.210-290.340), applying to public works contracts with no statewide minimum dollar threshold. |
| Montana | New-employer rate 1.00% to 2.00% by industry (plus 0.18% admin fee); experience-rated range 0.00% to 6.12%; 2026 taxable wage base $47,300. | NCCI advisory rating state; workers' comp insurance is written by private carriers and the competitive (non-monopolistic) Montana State Fund, using NCCI class codes. | Montana has its own Little Davis-Bacon law; it applies to state and local public works contracts of $25,000 or more. |
| Nebraska | New-employer rate 1.25% (non-construction) or 5.40% (construction); experience-rated range 0.00% to 5.40% across 20 categories; 2026 taxable wage base $9,000, or $24,000 for the highest-rated (Category 20) employers. | NCCI advisory rating state; no state fund, coverage written entirely through private carriers using NCCI class codes. | Nebraska has no general state prevailing-wage law for public works; the U.S. Department of Labor lists it among the states without one. |
| Nevada | New-employer rate 3.00% (2.95% base plus 0.05% Career Enhancement Program); experience-rated range 0.25% to 5.40%; 2026 taxable wage base $43,700. | NCCI advisory rating state; workers' comp is written by private carriers, with no exclusive state fund (Nevada privatized its former state fund in 1999). | Nevada has its own prevailing-wage law (NRS Chapter 338) applying to public works contracts of $100,000 or more. |
| New Hampshire | New-employer rate approximately 1.7% in the employer's first year; experience-rated range roughly 0.01% to 7.5%; taxable wage base $14,000 (unchanged for many years). | NCCI advisory rating state; workers' comp is written by private carriers under state Insurance Department oversight, with a 2026 statewide rate cut approved. | New Hampshire has no state prevailing-wage law; its former statute was repealed in 1985. |
| New Jersey | 2026 taxable wage base $44,800; employee UI contribution rate 0.425%; new-employer and full experience-rated employer rate ranges for 2026 were not confirmed against a live NJDOL rate table during this research. | Independent state rating bureau: the New Jersey Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau (CRIB), not NCCI. | New Jersey has its own Prevailing Wage Act, with multiple contract thresholds (approximately $2,000, $16,263 and $50,000 depending on contract type). |
| New Mexico | New-employer rate starts around 1.00% and varies by industry; experience-rated range 0.33% to 5.4% (up to 6.4% with excess claims premium); 2026 taxable wage base $34,800. | NCCI advisory rating state; workers' comp is written by private carriers, with NCCI administering the state's assigned risk pool. | New Mexico has its own Public Works Minimum Wage Act, applying to public works contracts of $60,000 or more. |
| New York | New-employer rate 4.1% (4.025% UI plus 0.075% Re-employment Services Fund); experience-rated range 1.7% to 9.5%; taxable wage base approximately $17,600, reconfirm exact 2026 figure. | Independent state rating bureau: the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB), not NCCI. | New York has its own prevailing-wage law with no minimum dollar threshold, covering essentially all public works contracts. |
| North Carolina | New-employer rate 1.0%; experience-rated range 0.06% to 5.76%; 2026 taxable wage base $34,200. | Independent state rating bureau: the North Carolina Rate Bureau (NCRB), not NCCI. | North Carolina has no state prevailing-wage law for public works. |
| North Dakota | New employer rate 1.00% (positive-balance, non-construction) or 6.07% (negative-balance); construction new employers pay a flat 9.67%. Taxable wage base is $46,600 for 2026. | Monopolistic state. Employers must purchase workers' compensation exclusively through the state fund, North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI); no private insurance option exists for in-state employment. | North Dakota has no state prevailing-wage law. The state's own prevailing-wage statute (N.D. Century Code Title 34) was repealed in 1995, so only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only to federally funded or federally assisted contracts. |
| Ohio | New employer rate 2.7%. Experienced employers range from 0.30% to 8.50%. Taxable wage base is $9,000 for 2026. | Monopolistic state. Employers must purchase workers' compensation exclusively through the state fund, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC); no private insurance option exists for in-state employment. | Ohio has its own prevailing-wage law under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4115. Thresholds are roughly $250,000 for new construction and $75,000 for reconstruction or repair on most public improvements, with lower thresholds for road, street and sewer projects. |
| Oklahoma | New employer rate 1.5%. Experienced employers range from 0.2% to 5.8%. Taxable wage base is $25,000 for 2026, down from $28,200 in 2025. | Competitive state using NCCI advisory rates and class codes. Employers may buy coverage from any licensed private carrier, including CompSource Mutual Insurance Company, Oklahoma's former state fund which now competes with private insurers. | Oklahoma has no enforceable state prevailing-wage law. Its prevailing-wage statute was struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1995 as an unconstitutional delegation of authority and has not been reenacted. |
| Oregon | New employer rate 2.4%. Experienced employers range from 0.9% to 5.4% under Tax Schedule 3 for 2026. Taxable wage base is $56,700. | NCCI advisory state. Oregon uses NCCI-filed pure premium rates and class codes, with the state's Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) regulating filed rates; employers buy coverage from licensed private carriers or the SAIF Corporation, Oregon's competitive state fund. | Oregon has its own prevailing-wage law under ORS 279C.800 to 279C.870 (the Prevailing Wage Rate law), administered by the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). It applies to public works contracts exceeding $50,000. |
| Pennsylvania | New employer rate 3.822% (non-construction) or 10.5924% (construction). Experienced employers range from 1.419% to 10.3734%. Taxable wage base is a static $10,000. | Independent rating bureau state. Pennsylvania does not use NCCI; rates and class codes are set by the Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau (PCRB), the state's own independent rating organization. | Pennsylvania has its own prevailing-wage law, the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act of 1961 (Act 442), applying to public works contracts with an estimated cost over $25,000, with a $100,000 threshold for certain locally funded highway and bridge projects. |
| Rhode Island | New employer base rate 1.21% (including the 0.21% Job Development Assessment). Experienced employers range from 0.9% to 9.4% under Tax Schedule F for 2026. Taxable wage base is $30,800 for most employers, $32,300 for employers at the highest tax rate. | NCCI advisory state. Rhode Island uses NCCI-filed loss costs and class codes; employers purchase coverage from licensed private carriers, which are regulated through the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation. | Rhode Island has its own prevailing-wage law, applying to public works contracts exceeding $1,000, one of the lowest thresholds among states with such laws. |
| South Carolina | New employer rate 1.060% (including the 0.06% Departmental Administrative Contingency Assessment). New employers are not individually experience-rated until after 12 months of liability. Taxable wage base is $14,000. | NCCI advisory state. South Carolina mandates adoption of NCCI-approved loss costs; employers purchase coverage from licensed private carriers regulated by the South Carolina Department of Insurance. | South Carolina has no state prevailing-wage law. Public construction contracts are not subject to a state-mandated prevailing wage requirement. |
| South Dakota | New employer rate 1.20% for year 1 (6.00% for construction employers), dropping to 1.00% for years 2 and 3 (3.00% for construction), plus a 0.55% administrative fee in all years. Taxable wage base is $15,000 for 2026. | NCCI advisory state. South Dakota uses NCCI-filed loss costs and class codes; employers purchase coverage from licensed private carriers. | South Dakota has no state prevailing-wage law. Public construction contracts are not subject to a state-mandated prevailing wage requirement. |
| Tennessee | New employers pay a flat 2.7 percent; established employers range from roughly 0.01 percent to 10 percent depending on the reserve-ratio table in effect; the 2026 taxable wage base is $7,000. | Tennessee is an NCCI advisory state; workers' compensation rates are based on NCCI loss costs approved by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. | Tennessee has a narrow state prevailing wage law limited to state-funded highway, road and bridge construction over $50,000; it does not cover other public works such as schools or buildings. |
| Texas | For 2026, Texas unemployment tax rates range from a 0.32 percent minimum to a 6.32 percent maximum, with a taxable wage base of $9,000, the federal floor and one of the lowest wage bases in the country. | Texas uses NCCI advisory rates through the Texas Department of Insurance, but workers' compensation coverage is optional for most private employers under the state's unique non-subscriber system. | Texas has a limited public-works wage statute under Government Code Chapter 2258 with no statewide minimum threshold, but it is decentralized: each contracting public body sets its own prevailing rate rather than a central agency, and some sources describe it as effectively unenforced. |
| Utah | Utah's 2026 employer tax rate range runs from 0.1 percent to 7.1 percent, with new out-of-state contractors assigned the 7.1 percent maximum; the 2026 taxable wage base is $50,700. | Utah is an NCCI advisory state; workers' compensation rates are set through NCCI loss costs filed with and regulated by the Utah Insurance Department. | Utah has no state prevailing wage law; it repealed its prevailing wage statute in 1981 and has not enacted a replacement, so only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only on federally funded projects. |
| Vermont | Effective July 1, 2026, Vermont's new employer rate is 1 percent for most employers, with an experience-rated range of roughly 0.4 percent to 8.4 percent; the 2026 taxable wage base is $15,400. | Vermont is an NCCI advisory state; workers' compensation rates are based on NCCI loss costs, regulated by the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation. | Vermont requires prevailing wages on state construction contracts over $100,000, and on capital construction projects over $200,000 that are at least 50 percent state-funded. |
| Virginia | Virginia's new employer rate is 2.5 percent, the experience-rated range runs from roughly 0.1 percent to 6.2 percent, and the taxable wage base remains $8,000. | Virginia is an NCCI advisory state; workers' compensation rates are based on NCCI loss costs, regulated by the Virginia State Corporation Commission's Bureau of Insurance. | Virginia reinstated a state prevailing wage law effective May 1, 2021, covering public contracts of $250,000 or more where the state provides funding, or where a locality has adopted a prevailing wage ordinance. |
| Washington | Washington's 2026 qualified-employer tax rates range from about 0.27 percent to 6.03 percent (including the Employment Administration Fund add-on), and the taxable wage base is $78,200. | Washington is a monopolistic workers' compensation state. Most private employers must buy coverage through the Washington State Fund administered by the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I); there is no private insurance option, though qualifying large employers may self-insure. | Washington requires prevailing wages on essentially all public works and maintenance contracts under RCW 39.12, with no general statewide minimum dollar threshold; a separate rule sets a $25,000 threshold specifically for state college and university construction. |
| West Virginia | West Virginia's new employer rate is commonly cited at 2.7 percent, with an experience-rated range roughly between 1.5 percent and 7.5 to 8.5 percent, and a 2026 taxable wage base of $9,500. | West Virginia privatized its state-run workers' compensation system in 2006 and now uses NCCI advisory rates, regulated by the West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner. | West Virginia repealed its state prevailing wage law in 2016 and has no current state prevailing wage requirement; only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only on federally funded projects. |
| Wisconsin | Wisconsin's 2026 new employer rates range from 2.50 percent to 3.25 percent depending on payroll size and industry (construction versus other), the general experience-rated range runs from 0.00 percent to 12.00 percent, and the taxable wage base is $14,000. | Wisconsin does not use NCCI. Rates are set through the independent Wisconsin Compensation Rating Bureau (WCRB), a licensed rate service organization regulated by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. | Wisconsin repealed its state prevailing wage law for state projects effective in 2017-2018, and had already phased out local prevailing wage coverage around 2017; only the federal Davis-Bacon Act now applies to Wisconsin public works receiving federal funds. |
| Wyoming | Wyoming's 2026 taxable wage base is confirmed at $33,800; secondary sources cite new employer rates ranging roughly from 2.28 percent to 9.78 percent by industry and an experience-rated range of roughly 0.09 percent to 8.5 percent, but these rate figures were not independently confirmed on the state's own site. | Wyoming is a monopolistic workers' compensation state. Most employers must obtain coverage through the state fund administered by the Workers' Safety and Compensation Division; a narrow set of exempt employers may use private insurers. | Wyoming requires prevailing hourly wages on public works construction contracts over $100,000, applying only to workers directly engaged in on-site construction work. |
Quick Reference: Construction Site Injury Rules, All 50 States
Headline summaries only, for every state at a glance. This category’s research is newer and less complete than the other four; cells marked “research pending” reflect a real but not-yet-fully-confirmed finding. Full detail, citations and source links are available for each state above (full detail requires a free email unlock).
| State | OSHA Enforcement (State Plan or Federal) | Third-Party Contribution / Indemnification | Piercing Employer Workers’ Comp Exclusivity/Immunity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory-employer defenses are listed as a live issue to check, but the source doesn't detail how Alabama's test works. | General exclusive-remedy bar under Ala. Code tit. 25, ch. 5: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Alaska | AKOSH: full state plan, private + public sector | Borrowed-employee and statutory-employer issues are live in Alaska, but the source doesn't detail the test. | General employer immunity under §23.30.001 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Arizona | ADOSH: full state plan, private + public sector | No statutory-employer shield described for Arizona; third-party claims turn on who controlled the work, possessed the area, created or knew of the hazard, or voluntarily assumed a safety duty. | General exclusivity under §§23-901 et seq., may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Arkansas | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Arkansas's statutory-employer rules turn on the contracting chain and who secured compensation coverage; a real, chain-dependent shield. | General bar under Ark. Code §§11-9-101 et seq., protecting qualifying statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| California | Cal/OSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | California's Privette doctrine generally shields a hirer (owner/GC) from an independent contractor's employee's injury claim, with real, named exceptions for retained control that affirmatively contributed to the injury, or negligent provision of unsafe equipment. | General exclusivity under §3600, but immunity can be pierced if the employer failed to secure compensation coverage (§3706) or knowingly removed/failed to install a required power-press safety guard (§4558). |
| Colorado | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Colorado may extend immunity to qualifying statutory employers; non-immune third parties are reached via retained control, dangerous premises, negligent undertaking, contractual duties, or product liability. | General immunity under §§8-40-101 et seq. for employers and qualifying statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Connecticut | CONN-OSHA; public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | No statutory-employer shield described; third-party claims focus on premises possession/notice, retained control, negligent undertaking, products, and independent contractual duties. | Employer immunity is subject to "limited statutory exceptions": this source doesn't name or detail the specific exception. |
| Delaware | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory-employer protection is flagged for review, but the source doesn't detail how Delaware's test works. | General exclusivity under 19 Del. C. §§2301 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Florida | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Qualifying statutory employers get substantial immunity in Florida; non-statutory-employer third parties are reached via premises liability, negligent activity, retained control, negligent undertaking, dangerous-instrumentality, products, or vehicle theories. | Immunity can be pierced only via the narrow statutory intentional-tort exception, which requires more than ordinary negligence or a safety-rule violation. |
| Georgia | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Georgia may extend statutory-employer protection to a GC, but the source doesn't detail the test; non-immune third parties are reached via premises defects, control of construction operations, negligent safety undertakings, defective equipment, or vehicle negligence. | General exclusivity under tit. 34, ch. 9, may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Hawaii | Full state plan, private + public sector | Statutory employer is a live issue to check in Hawaii, but the source doesn't detail the test. | General employer immunity under ch. 386: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Idaho | Full state plan, private + public sector | Idaho may extend protection to statutory employers, plus a distinct borrowed-employee doctrine; non-immune third parties are reached via independent duty, control, notice, or product defect. | General exclusivity under §§72-101 et seq., may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Illinois | Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | Illinois allows contribution against the employer, but Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding caps it at the employer's own workers' compensation liability absent a waiver: a real, quantified limit, not a bar. | Direct suit is barred, but the employer can still be brought in for contribution: capped at the employer's own workers' compensation liability under the Kotecki rule. |
| Indiana | IOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Indiana may extend protection to statutory employers and certain co-employees; non-immune third parties are reached via premises, retained control, negligent undertaking, defective products, or vehicles. | General exclusivity under §§22-3-1 et seq., may protect statutory employers and certain co-employees: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Iowa | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory employer is a live issue to check in Iowa, but the source doesn't detail the test. | Exclusivity has a narrow exception for the employer's serious and willful misconduct. |
| Kansas | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Kansas may extend statutory-employer protection to qualifying contractors; non-immune third parties are reached via premises, retained control, negligent undertaking, products, or vehicles. | General exclusivity under §§44-501 et seq., "subject to statutory exceptions"; this source doesn't detail what those exceptions are. |
| Kentucky | KY OSH: confirmed full state plan, covering BOTH public and private sectors | Kentucky's up-the-ladder statutory-employer protection for qualifying contractors is described as "important"; a real, meaningful shield up the contracting chain, not a minor exception. | General immunity plus up-the-ladder statutory-employer protection; the manual flags "intentional-conduct exceptions" as a live issue to analyze but doesn't detail the standard. |
| Louisiana | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Louisiana's statutory-employer doctrine is central on multi-tier projects and may protect a principal or GC that meets the statutory requirements. | General exclusivity under §§23:1021 et seq., with the statutory-employer doctrine central to whether a principal/GC is protected: this source doesn't name a piercing exception beyond that determination. |
| Maine | Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | Statutory employer is listed as a live issue to check, but the source doesn't detail how Maine's test works. | General employer immunity under Title 39-A while preserving third-party claims: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception against the employer itself. |
| Maryland | MOSH: full state plan, private + public sector | No statutory-employer shield described; third-party claims involve premises liability, control, notice, negligent undertaking, product defect, and vehicles. | General bar on direct employer negligence claims under Lab. & Empl. §§9-101 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Massachusetts | Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | No statutory-employer shield described; civil claims against non-employers rest on premises defects, control, negligent undertaking, product defect, professional negligence, or vehicles. | General employer immunity under ch. 152: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Michigan | MIOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Statutory-employer status is a live issue to check in Michigan, but the source doesn't detail the test. | Exclusivity has a narrow intentional-tort exception under MCL §418.131(1)(b). |
| Minnesota | MNOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Minnesota may extend protection to statutory employers; non-immune third parties are reached via common-law retained control, premises possession, negligent undertaking, construction contracts, or product defect. | General exclusivity under ch. 176, may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Mississippi | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Mississippi protects qualifying statutory employers, in addition to the direct employer; liability against non-qualifying third parties turns on possession/control, hazard creation, notice, active participation, independent duty, or product defect. | General protection under §§71-3-1 et seq. for employers and qualifying statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Missouri | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Missouri protects qualifying statutory employers and co-employees; the threshold question in any third-party claim is whether the defendant is a protected co-employee or statutory employer. | General exclusivity under §§287.010 et seq. for qualifying statutory employers and co-employees: this source doesn't name a further piercing exception. |
| Montana | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory-employer and co-employee issues are live in Montana, but the source doesn't detail the test. | General employer immunity under §§39-71-101 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Nebraska | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory-employer status is a confirmed, real issue in Nebraska with a case directly on point, though the source doesn't detail the qualifying test. | General exclusivity under §§48-101 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Nevada | Full state plan, private + public sector | Nevada extends workers' compensation immunity to qualifying contractors, not just the direct employer; a real, named shield. | General immunity under ch. 616A-D for employers and qualifying contractors: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| New Hampshire | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory-employer and co-employee status are live issues to check, but the source doesn't detail how New Hampshire's test works. | General employer protection under ch. 281-A: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| New Jersey | Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | No general statutory-employer shield described; third parties are reached via negligence, premises liability, negligent undertaking, product liability, and retained-control theories. | Exclusivity can be pierced only through the narrow, fact-intensive "intentional wrong" exception. |
| New Mexico | Full state plan, private + public sector | New Mexico extends immunity to qualifying statutory employers, not just the direct employer. | General immunity under §§52-1-1 et seq. for employers and qualifying statutory employers: this source cites the exclusivity case but doesn't detail an exception standard. |
| New York | Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | No general statutory-employer shield for GCs/owners; Labor Law §§240(1)/241(6)/200 impose direct, non-delegable duties on them, separate from the employer's WCL §11 protection. | Contribution/indemnity against the employer is barred by WCL §11 absent a written agreement or a statutory "grave injury." |
| North Carolina | Full state plan (NC OSH), private + public sector | North Carolina can extend protection to statutory employers; third-party claims remain available against parties outside the protected employment relationship. | Exclusivity can be pierced through the Woodson v. Rowland intentional-tort exception (conduct substantially certain to cause injury). |
| North Dakota | Full state plan, private + public sector; coordinated with the state's monopolistic workers' comp fund | Statutory-employer and co-employee protection are confirmed, real issues in North Dakota with a case directly on point, though the source doesn't detail the qualifying test. | Strong general employer immunity through the workers' compensation system under ch. 65-01: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Ohio | Federal OSHA: no state plan; monopolistic state workers' comp fund | Statutory employer is a live issue to check in Ohio, but the source doesn't detail the test. | Exclusivity can be pierced through Ohio's statutory employer-intentional-tort claim. |
| Oklahoma | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory-employer status is a live issue to check in Oklahoma, but the source doesn't detail the test. | Exclusivity has a statutory intentional-tort exception. |
| Oregon | Oregon OSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Oregon extends protection to qualifying statutory employers, not just the direct employer. | General protection under ch. 656 for employers and qualifying statutory employers: this source cites a case on "independent duty" but doesn't detail the standard. |
| Pennsylvania | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Pennsylvania's statutory-employer doctrine can extend immunity to a GC within a contracting chain; a real shield, not just an employer-level protection. | General exclusivity, but Tooey v. AK Steel recognizes a limit for occupational-disease claims falling outside the Act's time bar; the statutory-employer doctrine can extend immunity up the contracting chain. |
| Rhode Island | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory-employer status is a live issue to check, but the source doesn't detail how Rhode Island's test works. | General employer protection under §§28-29-1 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| South Carolina | Full state plan, private + public sector | South Carolina may extend protection to statutory employers; non-immune third parties are reached via premises conditions, retained control, active participation, negligent undertaking, product defects, or vehicles. | General exclusivity under §§42-1-10 et seq., may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| South Dakota | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory employer is a live issue to check in South Dakota, but the source doesn't detail the test. | General employer immunity under ch. 62: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Tennessee | TOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Tennessee may extend protection to statutory employers; non-immune third parties are reached via retained control, premises notice, active participation, negligent undertaking, product defect, or contractual duties. | General exclusivity under §§50-6-101 et seq., may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Texas | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | No traditional statutory-employer shield; Texas's subscriber/nonsubscriber election controls the whole framework, and proportionate-responsibility rules govern allocation among multiple defendants. | There's no traditional "exception"; immunity turns entirely on subscriber election. A subscribing employer gets strong immunity; a nonsubscribing employer faces direct negligence liability under a separate statutory regime. |
| Utah | UOSH: full state plan, private + public sector | Utah may extend protection to statutory employers; non-immune third parties are reached via premises, retained-control, negligent-undertaking, product, or vehicle principles. | General exclusivity under §§34A-2-101 et seq., may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Vermont | Full state plan, private + public sector | Statutory-employer status is a live issue to check, but the source doesn't detail how Vermont's test works. | General exclusivity under Title 21, ch. 9: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| Virginia | Full state plan (VOSH), private + public sector | Virginia's statutory-employer doctrine is central and can shield a GC on multi-tier projects, not just the direct employer. | Exclusive against both the direct employer and any qualifying statutory employer under the §65.2-302 statutory-employer doctrine: this source doesn't name a separate piercing exception. |
| Washington | WISHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Statutory employer is a confirmed, real issue in Washington with a case directly on point, though the source doesn't detail the qualifying test in full. | Industrial insurance generally bars employer negligence claims under Title 51: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
| West Virginia | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Barred for ordinary negligence (majority rule, codified), but a third party CAN implead the employer for contribution/indemnity where the employer's conduct was willful, wanton, reckless, or an intentional tort: directly confirmed by the WV Supreme Court and coherent with the state's deliberate-intent doctrine | Exclusivity can be pierced through West Virginia's statutory "deliberate intention" claim (W. Va. Code §23-4-2(d)(2)(B)), but only for an injury meeting one of four statutory severity tests, most commonly at least 13% whole-person impairment. |
| Wisconsin | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | No statutory-employer shield described for Wisconsin; instead, the Safe Place Statute can impose separate, fact-specific duties on a property owner/employer beyond ordinary exclusivity. | Exclusivity generally bars claims, but Wisconsin's Safe Place Statute can impose a separate, fact-specific duty on the employer as a property owner. |
| Wyoming | Full state plan, private + public sector | Wyoming extends immunity to qualifying statutory employers, not just the direct employer. | General employer and statutory-employer immunity under §§27-14-101 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception. |
This is reference information for your own verification, not legal advice and not a substitute for confirming the current rate and rule with the official source linked above or with counsel. Some states' rates float on a schedule (monthly, quarterly, or annually); always check the live source link for the number as of today, not just what's shown here. Which claim type actually applies to your specific claim is itself a legal question this tool can't answer for you. See the full disclaimer in the FAQ and Terms for more.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Eichleay Formula?
The Eichleay Formula is a standard method for calculating unabsorbed home office overhead caused by owner-caused project delays. It allocates overhead based on the delayed contract's share of total company billings, then applies a daily rate to the compensable delay period.
How do you calculate extended overhead on a construction delay claim?
Extended overhead combines two pieces: unabsorbed home office overhead (via the Eichleay Formula: contract billings ÷ firm billings × firm overhead, spread across actual performance days, then multiplied by delay days) and extended field overhead (your daily general conditions rate multiplied by delay days). ClaimDuke's Delay & Overhead calculator computes both automatically, plus MCAA labor inefficiency, into one total.
What is a fully burdened labor rate and how is it calculated?
A fully burdened labor rate is an employee's true hourly cost to the company: base wage plus payroll taxes, workers' compensation, PTO load, health insurance and tools/equipment. It's almost always significantly higher than the base wage alone, which is why contractors who bid off base wage frequently underbid jobs.
How is Actual Cash Value (ACV) calculated for property damage?
ACV equals Replacement Cost Value (square footage × current cost per square foot) minus depreciation. Depreciation is calculated as the component's effective age divided by its useful life, capped at 100%, applied against the replacement cost. This is the standard method insurance adjusters use to determine payout on a depreciated basis.
How is interest calculated on an unpaid construction claim or judgment?
Simple interest is calculated as principal × annual rate × (days ÷ 365). Compound interest recalculates on principal plus previously accrued interest at a set frequency (monthly or annually). Which method applies depends on your state's statute and your contract's terms; always confirm the applicable rate and method with counsel.
Are these calculations legally defensible?
ClaimDuke applies recognized industry formulas (Eichleay, MCAA loss-of-efficiency factors, ACV/RCV depreciation and statutory interest methods) and cites the methodology in every unlocked report. This is a calculation and documentation tool, not legal advice; always have counsel review claims before submission. Using ClaimDuke does not create an attorney-client, accountant-client, or other professional or fiduciary relationship between you and ClaimDuke or its operators; ClaimDuke is a software tool, not a law firm, accounting firm, or claims-consulting firm.
What do I get for free versus paid?
Free use includes live interactive totals and a watermarked on-screen preview. Paid unlock ($19/report or $29+/month) includes the full line-item breakdown, a white-labeled PDF with your logo, a formatted live-formula Excel workbook, a matching Word/PDF report and citations for legal backing.
Can I use my own company logo on reports?
Yes, paid plans let you upload your logo and header details, which are applied to every exported Excel, Word and PDF report. If your company already has a designed letterhead, you can upload that instead (as a PNG, JPG, or PDF) from the same Report Branding section; it's used as the full-page background on your PDF and Word exports, so you don't have to rebuild your letterhead's look with just a logo and header text. The Excel workbook still uses your logo and header text, since a full-page background isn't a practical fit for a spreadsheet.
Is the Excel report a static template or does it use my actual numbers?
It's generated live, in your browser, from the exact values in your session; every input, formula and total in the workbook matches what's on screen when you export. Nothing is pre-filled with demo data. Formulas stay live too, so if you tweak an input cell in Excel afterward, every dependent total recalculates automatically.
What is the Scenario Comparison sheet?
Included with the Monthly plan, it's a side-by-side Conservative / Likely / Aggressive view of your result, for example, comparing your claim value at 30, 45 and 60 delay days, or your recommended bill rate at three different margin targets. It's built for negotiation prep: see your range before you sit down with the other side.
Can I import numbers from my own files instead of typing them in?
Yes, each calculator has an "Import from a file" button that reads a spreadsheet (.xlsx/.csv), text-based document (.pdf/.docx, such as an AIA G702/G703 exported as text), scanned document, or photo of a form (.jpg/.png, or a scanned PDF) and tries to match its labels to the right fields, filling them in automatically. Matched fields are highlighted briefly so you can see exactly what changed. If a value can't be confidently matched, or a field is missing from the file, you'll get a clear message telling you what to check or enter manually; nothing is filled in silently. Clearly labeled spreadsheets and text-based PDFs give the most reliable results; scanned images and photos use in-browser OCR (optical character recognition), which is slower and noticeably more error-prone, especially with handwriting, skewed photos, or low resolution; anything read this way is flagged clearly and you should always double-check it against your original document. The whole process, including OCR, runs in your browser: your file is read locally and is never uploaded to or stored on our servers. See our Privacy Policy for details.