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, claim interest, site injury, with the industry-standard formula cited in every output.
Runs entirely in your browser. Your figures and any documents you add are never uploaded. We never see them.
Eichleay Formula (home office overhead)
MCAA loss-of-efficiency factors
ACV / RCV depreciation schedules
Statutory pre/post-judgment interest
Choose a calculator
Eichleay Formula Calculator
Eichleay unabsorbed home office overhead, daily extended field overhead and MCAA labor inefficiency, combined into one delay claim.
Calculate delay damagesLabor Burden Calculator
Turn a base wage into a true fully burdened hourly cost: payroll taxes, workers’ comp, fringe, PTO and overhead.
Calculate your labor burdenACV vs RCV Calculator
Actual cash value against replacement cost, with depreciation, a multi-trade scope and soft-cost multipliers.
Calculate ACV and RCVConstruction Claim Interest & Liquidated Damages Calculator
Statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest, netted against liquidated damages to set a settlement range.
Calculate interest and LDsConstruction Injury Damages Calculator
Medical costs, lost earnings and future earning capacity, reduced under your state’s comparative negligence rule.
Calculate injury damagesWhat you get
Every calculator is free to run, as many times as you like and gives you the full on-screen breakdown plus a one-page PDF summary. A paid report assembles the same figures into a live-formula Excel workbook, a formatted Word document and a PDF, with your logo, the methodology and the citation for every method used.
State Reference: Interest, ACV, Delay Claim, Labor Burden & Property Loss Rules All 50 states + DC
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 + DC
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) |
| District of Columbia | 6% / year, fixed (general default); other rates apply in narrower contexts |
| Florida | 7.87% per year for the quarter beginning October 1, 2026 (8.06% for July 1 to September 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 Fifth Federal Reserve District secondary discount rate, capped at 9% and floored at 4%, for both pre- and post-judgment |
| 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 + DC
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 sets a deadline for releasing withheld depreciation. On labor depreciation, federal courts applying Alabama law have split depending on whether the policy defines ACV. |
| Alaska | Not settled: no Alaska statute or supreme court decision adopts an ACV valuation method | 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 sets a holdback release deadline. On labor depreciation, the Division of Insurance barred it in 2024 and withdrew that bulletin in 2025, so the question is unsettled. |
| Arizona | Policy-language-dependent: broad evidence rule only as a default | Arizona's rule on ACV and labor depreciation comes from case law, not a statute or regulation: Walker v. Auto-Owners (Ariz. 2022) construed undefined policy language. | No Arizona statute sets a holdback release deadline. On labor depreciation, the Arizona Supreme Court held in 2022 that labor may not be depreciated where the policy leaves depreciation undefined. |
| Arkansas | Replacement cost less depreciation. Labor may be depreciated only under a policy carrying the Commissioner-approved notice required since August 1, 2017; older policies follow Adams v. Cameron Mutual, which barred it. | 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 sets a holdback release deadline. Labor may be depreciated under policies that carry the notice required by Ark. Code Ann. § 23-88-106. |
| 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 sets a holdback release deadline and Connecticut has not settled whether labor may be depreciated. |
| Delaware | Fair market value, broad-evidence style (replacement cost is evidence, not the deciding measure) | No Delaware statute defines the ACV computation formula; Delaware has adopted the general Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, but ACV computation itself is governed by policy language and case law (parties in reported disputes have agreed ACV = replacement cost less depreciation, without a controlling statutory formula). | No Delaware statute or regulation sets a deadline for releasing withheld depreciation or addresses labor depreciation, so the policy terms control. |
| District of Columbia | Undecided: DC has not adopted the Broad Evidence Rule or a fixed ACV formula. | The DC Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking has issued a bulletin, dated August 11, 2025, taking the position that depreciating labor in an ACV calculation is an unfair claims settlement practice under existing DC insurance law, though this is subregulatory guidance rather than a standalone statute. | No D.C. statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, D.C. regulators consider depreciating labor and other nontangible costs an unfair claims settlement practice. |
| 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 Georgia statute or regulation defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation. Valuation comes from case law. | No Georgia statute sets the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. |
| Hawaii | Not settled: no Hawaii statute or appellate decision adopts an ACV method for a property insurance claim | No statute or regulation found that defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation, the issue remains an open common-law question in Hawaii. | No Hawaii statute or regulation governs the timing of a recoverable depreciation holdback or the depreciation of labor, so the policy terms control. |
| Idaho | Policy-language driven: depreciation applies where the policy defines ACV that way | No Idaho statute defines the ACV computation formula. Idaho uses the Broad Evidence Rule via case law. | No Idaho statute sets a holdback release deadline specifically, but a real consumer-protection statute requires insurers to pay valid claims within 30 days of a submitted proof of loss. |
| 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 Illinois statute or regulation sets a deadline or procedure for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. |
| Indiana | Broad evidence rule | No Indiana statute defines the ACV computation formula. Indiana uses the Broad Evidence Rule via case law. | No Indiana statute sets a holdback release deadline. On labor depreciation Indiana has no rule either way, because its leading case treats depreciation as one undifferentiated figure. |
| 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 Iowa statute sets a holdback release deadline. An administrative rule covers how ACV is determined but does not resolve the labor question. |
| 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. A later regulation requires depreciation deductions to be itemized. | No Kansas statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Kansas permits depreciating labor as part of ACV. |
| 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 Kentucky statute sets a holdback release deadline. On labor, the Sixth Circuit held that a policy incorporating Kentucky's regulatory ACV formula cannot depreciate labor. |
| 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 sets the timing of a recoverable depreciation holdback or addresses labor depreciation, so the policy terms control. |
| Maryland | Broad evidence rule | Maryland has no statute or regulation restricting labor depreciation. A 2025 bulletin was proposed but never adopted. 2026 legislation did not pass. | No Maryland statute currently sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, the Maryland Insurance Administration is actively debating a bulletin (as of early 2026) that would restrict labor depreciation, opposed by the insurance industry. |
| 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. | Massachusetts sets a two-year outer window: replacement cost coverage turns on repairs being made within two years of the loss, or longer if the insurer agrees. |
| Michigan | Replacement cost less depreciation (NOT the broad evidence rule). The Michigan Supreme Court superseded the older broad-evidence approach in 1992. | 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 sets a deadline or procedure for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. |
| 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 sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Minnesota uses a case-by-case, fact-finder approach rather than a bright-line rule. |
| 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 sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Mississippi has no statutory prohibition, but courts favor the insured's interpretation excluding labor from depreciation when the policy is silent. |
| 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 sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Missouri bars depreciating labor absent specific policy language allowing it. |
| Montana | Broad evidence rule for partial losses; face policy value for total losses | No Montana statute or regulation restricts depreciation of labor when calculating ACV. The Commissioner of Securities and Insurance said labor could not be depreciated in a December 2019 advisory memorandum but rescinded it in May 2020. | No Montana statute sets a holdback release deadline, so the policy terms control. A 2019 Commissioner memorandum barring labor depreciation was rescinded in 2020. |
| 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 sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Nebraska generally permits depreciating labor, with a narrower rule for ACV-only policies. |
| 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 sets the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on a replacement cost policy, so the policy terms control. |
| New Hampshire | Broad evidence rule | No New Hampshire statute or regulation defines an ACV methodology or restricts depreciating labor. The rule comes from common law. | No New Hampshire statute or regulation governs the timing of a recoverable depreciation holdback or the depreciation of labor, so the policy terms control. |
| 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 sets a holdback release deadline, but a real regulation requires any betterment/depreciation deduction to be itemized, specified by dollar amount and fair and equitable. |
| New Mexico | Residential claims: no depreciation deduction allowed (by statute). Other property: fair market value, capped at replacement cost. | New Mexico statute bars deducting depreciation at all, not merely on labor, for residential property policies. Commercial property is outside the statute and has no ACV methodology rule. | New Mexico requires residential property policies to cover repair or replacement cost without deduction for depreciation, which largely removes the holdback question for those policies. |
| 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 sets the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation once repairs are complete, so the policy terms control. |
| North Carolina | Broad evidence rule | No North Carolina statute, rule or Department of Insurance bulletin defines an ACV methodology or restricts depreciating labor. The rule allowing labor depreciation comes from case law. | No North Carolina statute or regulation sets the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. |
| North Dakota | Broad evidence rule for a partial loss; the valued policy law controls a total loss | No North Dakota statute or regulation defines an ACV calculation method or restricts depreciating labor. | No North Dakota statute or regulation governs the timing of a recoverable depreciation holdback or the depreciation of labor, so the policy terms control. |
| Ohio | Replacement cost minus depreciation; whether labor may be depreciated is unsettled | 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 Ohio statute or regulation sets a deadline or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation once repairs are complete, so the policy terms control. |
| Oklahoma | Broad evidence rule (labor may be depreciated as part of an integrated product) | No Oklahoma statute or Insurance Department rule defines an ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. The rule permitting it comes from case law. | No Oklahoma statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Oklahoma permits depreciating labor as part of ACV. |
| Oregon | No single formula; court/appraiser discretion (functions like a broad evidence rule) | No Oregon statute or rule defines an ACV calculation method or restricts depreciating labor for property claims. | No Oregon statute sets a general holdback release deadline, but a real statute requires insurers to disclose their depreciation methodology and sets deadlines for related post-loss payments (debris removal, landscaping loss). |
| Pennsylvania | Replacement cost minus depreciation | No Pennsylvania statute or regulation defines an ACV calculation method or restricts depreciating labor. The rule comes from case law. | No Pennsylvania statute or regulation sets the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. |
| 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. | Rhode Island's regulation sets how ACV is calculated but no deadline for releasing withheld depreciation, so the policy terms control that step. |
| South Carolina | Replacement cost minus depreciation (labor may be depreciated) | No South Carolina statute or regulation defines an ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. The rule permitting it comes from case law. | No South Carolina statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, South Carolina permits depreciating labor when repair costs include embedded labor components. |
| South Dakota | Broad evidence rule | No South Dakota statute or rule defines an ACV calculation method or restricts depreciating labor. | No South Dakota statute or regulation governs the timing of a recoverable depreciation holdback or the depreciation of labor, so the policy terms control. |
| 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. | Texas conditions payment of withheld depreciation on proof the deductible was paid, but sets no release deadline. |
| Utah | Replacement cost less depreciation, described by the Insurance Department rather than set by statute or case law | Utah has a regulatory ACV-calculation rule requiring depreciation documentation, but no provision restricting depreciation of labor specifically. | Utah's regulation covers how ACV is calculated but sets no deadline or notice requirement for paying withheld depreciation after repairs, so the policy terms control that step. |
| Vermont | Broad evidence rule | Vermont's insurance regulator is reported to treat depreciating labor cost as an unfair claim settlement practice; the bulletin itself has not been read in its original form. | 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. | No Washington statute sets a general release deadline for recoverable depreciation, but a real 2022 regulation bars insurers from depreciating labor costs at all. The Insurance Commissioner has precedent for emergency extensions of policy-based repair deadlines. |
| West Virginia | Unsettled: West Virginia has no current decision setting an ACV method | No West Virginia statute or regulation defines an ACV calculation method or restricts depreciating labor for property claims. | No West Virginia statute or regulation sets holdback timing or a labor rule for property claims, so the policy terms control. The one depreciation rule on the books covers vehicles. |
| 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 governs holdback timing or the depreciation of labor, so the policy terms control. |
| Wyoming | No Wyoming authority directly addresses ACV computation for property-insurance claims (including whether labor/GCOP is depreciable); Wyoming does have general personal-property valuation case law (market value / intrinsic value), but not specifically an insurance ACV formula. | No Wyoming statute defines the ACV computation formula; Wyoming has adopted the general Unfair Claims Settlement Practices framework (Wyo. Stat. § 26-13-124), but ACV computation itself is left to policy language and case law. | No Wyoming statute or regulation sets holdback release timing, so the policy terms control. |
Quick Reference: Delay-Claim Rules, All 50 States + DC
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 | Public contracts: A.R.S. § 34-221(F) requires a clause allowing negotiated recovery of delay damages caused by the agency, so a pure no-damages-for-delay clause does not hold. Private contracts: Arizona courts have not settled the question. | 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 | Public contracts: void by statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-91-103.5). Private contracts: enforceable if voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made. | 3 years for a contract action |
| Connecticut | Enforceable. Where a contract allows recovery for the owner's active interference, the contractor must show an affirmative, wilful act that unreasonably interfered with its work, though not bad faith or gross negligence. | 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 |
| District of Columbia | Enforceable but with recognized exceptions, including active interference | 3 years for a simple contract claim, express or implied |
| 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 | No Hawaii state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay 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 | Unenforceable as applied to public works contracts by statute (Minn. Stat. § 15.411). No Minnesota court has addressed private contracts. | 6 years for a contract action |
| Mississippi | Enforceable but strictly construed against the party seeking the benefit, with four recognised exceptions | 3 years for a claim without its own specifically prescribed period, covering an ordinary contract claim |
| Missouri | Unenforceable as applied to public works contracts by statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 34.058). No Missouri court has addressed private contracts. | 10 years for a written instrument for the payment of money or property |
| Montana | No Montana state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses. | 8 years for a written contract, covenant, obligation, or liability |
| Nebraska | Enforceable, with exceptions for the owner's arbitrary or unreasonable conduct, concealment, misrepresentation, fraud, bad faith and malicious intent | 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 | No New Hampshire state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses. | 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 | No New Mexico state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses. | 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 in public improvement contracts where the contracting agency caused the delay. Private contracts are unresolved. | 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 | No Vermont state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses. | 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 | No West Virginia state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses. | 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 in question was not actually a no-damages-for-delay provision | 10 years for a written contract claim |
Quick Reference: Labor-Burden Rules, All 50 States + DC
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 employers pay 2.70% on the first $8,000 of each employee's wages until they qualify for an experience rating. | 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 is 2.0% plus a 0.2% stabilization/administrative assessment (2.2% effective). Experienced employers range from 0.2% to 10.1%. Wage base is $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 is 1.9%, down from 2.2% in 2025. Experienced employers range from 1.1% to 9.9% for 2026 (statutory min/max are 0.1%/10.0%, but the actual 2026 assigned range is narrower due to a trust-fund solvency adjustment factor). Taxable wage base is $27,000. | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | State prevailing-wage law, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53 |
| Delaware | New employers pay 1.0% plus a 0.2% supplemental assessment. The taxable wage base is $14,500 for 2026 under a legislated phase-in ($12,500 in 2025, $16,500 from 2027). | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | State prevailing-wage law, 29 Del. C. Section 6960 |
| District of Columbia | New-employer rate 2.7%, wage base $9,000, unchanged for 2026 | NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply | Living Wage Act layered on federal Davis-Bacon coverage |
| 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; experienced employers range from 0.04% to 8.1%. | 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. Experienced employers fall into two disjoint bands: 0.208% to 0.694% for positive-rated employers, or 1.25% to 5.4% for negative-rated employers. 2026 taxable wage base is $58,300, up from $55,300 in 2025. | 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 for most industries. Construction employers get a different formula: the lesser of 4.0% or the average rate for all Indiana construction companies. Experienced employers range from 0.50% to 7.40% in good standing (9.40% if delinquent). | 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 | New non-construction employer rate is 1.000% (Rank 4); new CONSTRUCTION employers pay 5.400% (Rank 9), more than 5x the general rate. 2026 taxable wage base is $20,400, a dramatic drop from $39,500 in 2025 following a major legislative overhaul (Senate File 607). | 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; construction new-employers pay 5.55% instead. | 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 rate is 2.7% for most industries, but new CONSTRUCTION employers pay 9.0% instead, more than three times the general rate. Experienced employers fall into two disjoint bands under Rate Schedule A: 0.3% to 2.4% for positive-rated employers, or 6.5% to 9% for negative-rated employers. The 2026 taxable wage base is $12,000. | 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 the average rate for their industry (NAICS classification), floored at 1.00% and capped at 6.20%. Experienced employers fall into two disjoint bands: 0.09% to 1.94% for positive-rated employers, or 2.2% to 6.20% for negative-rated employers (no employer falls between 1.94% and 2.2%). The 2026 taxable wage base is $7,000. | 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; construction new-employers pay a separate 7.0% default rate until experience-rated. Established employers under Table A (2026, unchanged from 2025) range from 0.30% to 7.50%. 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 | New-employer rate is 2.42% for most industries, but a separate, higher 6.08% new-employer rate applies specifically to construction employers. Experienced employers range from 0.94% to 5.24% (positive-rated) and 7.03% to 14.37% (negative-rated) under Schedule E, before a COVID-19 recovery assessment that pushes the effective range to about 1.118% to 17.086%. Taxable wage base is $15,000. | 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. Experienced employers range from 0.06% to 10.30%. 2026 taxable wage base is $9,000 for employers in good standing, $9,500 for delinquent employers. | 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. The Prevailing Wages on State Projects Act took effect 13 February 2024 after the 2018 repeal. |
| 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 employers start at the statutory 2.7% rate, reduced each quarter by the fund balance reduction, which is why 1.7% is often quoted. Wage base $14,000. | 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 | Employer UI contribution rate is set annually on a July-June FISCAL year, not calendar year; rate table moved to 'Column C' (0.5% to 5.8%) effective July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. 2026 taxable wage base $44,800. | 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%; 2026 taxable wage base $13,000. | 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 is 2.85% for most industries, but a separate, much higher 5.85% new-employer rate applies specifically to construction employers. Experience-rated range is 0.55% to 10.25% (includes a new 0.15% technology/customer-service fee for 2026). Taxable wage base is $9,000. | 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's threshold is $1,000 of public funds, one of the lowest in the country. Rates come from the federal Davis-Bacon determinations. |
| South Carolina | New employer rate is a flat 1.0% for businesses with less than 12 months of liability. Experienced employers range from 0.06% to 5.46% by tax class. 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%. Experienced employers fall into one of two disjoint bands under Premium Rate Table 6: 0.01% to 2.3% for positive-rated employers, or 5% to 10% for negative-rated employers (no employer falls between 2.3% and 5%). Rates reset semi-annually (Jan. 1 and July 1), not annually. 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; out-of-state (foreign) construction corporations (NAICS 236, 237, 238) are instead assigned an industry-based rate. Experience-rated range is 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. 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 2.7% for in-state employers; out-of-state construction contractors are assigned 8.5% instead. Experience-rated range is 1.5% to 8.5%. 2026 taxable wage base is $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: 3.05% (payroll under $500,000) or 3.25% (payroll $500,000+) for most industries; construction employers get a lower 2.90% or 3.10% respectively. Experience-rated range is 0.00% to 12.00%. 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 $33,800. New-employer rates run roughly 2.28% to 9.78% by industry (an all-in figure including annual adjustment factors); experience-rated employers fall on a base-rate cap of 0.09% to 8.50%, with the same adjustment factors added on top. | 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 + DC
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) | Workers' compensation does not bar the injured worker's suit against a negligent party other than the employer. That claim follows ordinary Alabama negligence rules. Contributory negligence can bar recovery outright. | No intentional-injury exception against the employer for the workplace injury itself. Co-employees can be sued for willful conduct. Separate torts such as fraud or outrage are not barred. |
| Alaska | AKOSH: full state plan, private + public sector | Project owners and contractors above the direct employer share its exclusive-remedy protection under AS 23.30.045(a) and AS 23.30.055, which bars the injured worker's negligence suit against them. | Intentional-tort exception, with a stiff burden: the worker must show a genuine intent to injure. Gross negligence or knowingly sending a worker into danger is not enough. |
| Arizona | ADOSH: full state plan, private + public sector | Third-party claims on an Arizona site turn on who controlled the work, possessed the area, created or knew of the hazard, or voluntarily took on a safety duty. | An employer or co-employee who acts knowingly and purposely with the direct object of injuring a worker can be sued; gross negligence is not enough. |
| Arkansas | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-410 lets the injured worker or the employer's carrier sue a responsible third party and gives the carrier a lien on the recovery, but the made-whole doctrine can defeat that lien when a court-approved settlement leaves the worker's family short. | An employer that acts with actual, specific and deliberate intent to injure a worker loses exclusive-remedy protection, as does an employer without required coverage. |
| California | Cal/OSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | California's Privette doctrine presumes a hirer delegates jobsite safety to the contractor. The exceptions are narrow: retained control that the hirer actually exercised in a way that affirmatively contributed to the injury, a concealed hazard the contractor could not have discovered, or negligently provided 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) | A statutory employer under Colorado's Workers' Compensation Act is immune from civil liability, including third-party contribution claims, even where the injured worker already received benefits from their actual, direct employer. | 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 | A general contractor is a principal employer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-291, but it gets immunity from the injured worker's suit only if it actually paid the compensation benefits for that injury. | Narrow intentional-tort exception: an employee can pierce exclusivity by proving actual intent to injure, or that the employer intentionally created a condition it knew was substantially certain to cause injury. |
| Delaware | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Delaware assigns compensation for a subcontractor's employee to that subcontractor alone (19 Del. C. § 2311), so the upstream contractor is not immune and can be sued in tort even when it directed the work. | Narrow intent exception: a tort action against the employer requires facts showing the employer intended to injure the worker. |
| District of Columbia | Federal OSHA, no state plan (DC is a federal district, not a state and is not eligible for an OSHA State Plan). | No statutory-employer shield described; third-party claims use ordinary negligence, premises liability, retained control, negligent undertaking, products and vehicle law. | Narrow intentional-harm exception (specific intent to harm required, not mere recklessness), plus an uninsured-employer 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) | A statutory employer that pays workers' compensation benefits cannot be sued for contribution or implied indemnity by a third-party tortfeasor. | Georgia has no intentional-act exception to workers' compensation exclusivity in practice. The employee must show the employer specifically intended to cause the injury. |
| Hawaii | Full state plan, private + public sector | Hawaii bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking contribution against the injured worker's employer. | General employer immunity under chapter 386. Suits against a co-employee are governed by Iddings v. Mee-Lee. |
| Idaho | Full state plan, private + public sector | Since Smith v. Excel Fabrication (2023), an independent contractor is not immune as a statutory co-employee, so an injured worker can sue it in tort even after collecting compensation from the direct employer. | Codified narrow exception: employer immunity does not apply where the injury was proximately caused by the employer's (or its agent's) wilful or unprovoked physical aggression. |
| 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 Ind. Code §§ 22-3-1 et seq., which may also protect statutory employers and certain co-employees |
| Iowa | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Iowa does not give a general contractor automatic statutory-employer immunity, so check that question first. | Unusually broad immunity: Iowa gives the employer blanket immunity with no intentional-tort exception. A narrower gross-negligence route runs only against a co-employee. |
| 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 Kan. Stat. §§ 44-501 et seq., subject to statutory exceptions |
| Kentucky | KY OSH is a full state plan covering both public and private sector workers | Kentucky's up-the-ladder statutory-employer protection is a real shield for qualifying contractors, so that is the threshold question on any site claim. | General employer immunity plus up-the-ladder protection for qualifying contractors. Intentional conduct is the exception to analyze. |
| Louisiana | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Louisiana's statutory-employer doctrine is central on multi-tier projects and can protect a principal or general contractor that meets the statutory requirements. | General exclusivity under La. Rev. Stat. §§ 23:1021 et seq., with the statutory-employer doctrine deciding whether a principal or general contractor is protected |
| Maine | Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | A third party (e.g., a project owner) generally cannot obtain contractual indemnification from an employer despite the employer's workers-comp immunity, UNLESS the indemnification clause contains a clear and explicit waiver of that immunity. | Unusually narrow: Maine has no general intentional-tort or gross-negligence exception. The only statutory carve-out, added in 2023, covers sexual harassment and sexual assault. |
| Maryland | MOSH: full state plan, private + public sector | Third-party claims turn on premises liability, control, notice, negligent undertaking, product defect and vehicles. Maryland's contributory-negligence rule is a major cross-cutting defense. | Direct employer negligence claims are barred under Lab. & Empl. §§ 9-101 et seq. The recognised exceptions are set out in the distinctive doctrine entry below. |
| Massachusetts | Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA | No statutory-employer shield. Claims against a non-employer rest on premises defects, retained control, negligent undertaking, product defect, professional negligence or vehicles. | General employer immunity under ch. 152, with an extremely narrow intentional-tort exception |
| Michigan | MIOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Statutory-employer status is worth checking in Michigan, but the bigger question on a construction site is the common work area doctrine. | 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, which may also protect statutory employers |
| Mississippi | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Mississippi gives broad up-the-line immunity: a general contractor is immune even if it did not itself provide workers' compensation coverage, so long as coverage exists somewhere in the chain. | Mississippi requires actual intent to injure. Its Supreme Court has rejected the substantial certainty standard used in many other states. |
| 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., covering qualifying statutory employers and co-employees |
| Montana | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory employer and co-employee questions are live in Montana. Third-party claims otherwise turn on premises control, retained control, negligent undertaking and product liability. | Narrow specific-intent-to-injure exception; Montana has repeatedly declined to adopt the more lenient 'substantial certainty' doctrine used in many other states. |
| Nebraska | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Statutory employer status is a real issue in Nebraska under § 48-116, with Rogers v. Hansen the leading case. | Unusually narrow: Nebraska does NOT recognize a general intentional-tort exception. Even intentional concealment or intentional infliction of injury still falls within exclusivity. The only real carve-out is for willful, unprovoked physical aggression by a co-employee, officer, or director. |
| Nevada | Full state plan, private + public sector | A third party that has compensated an injured worker cannot seek indemnity or contribution from that worker's employer or co-employee. | Narrow intentional-injury exception requiring deliberate, specific intent to injure. Nevada courts set a high bar and draw a hard line against mere negligence, however severe. |
| New Hampshire | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | RSA 281-A:18 makes a general contractor liable for compensation to a subcontractor's injured employee, which gives the general contractor exclusive-remedy immunity from third-party claims. | Intentional-injury exception requiring substantial certainty the injury would occur; negligence or recklessness alone is not enough. A separate dual-capacity doctrine can also pierce employer immunity. |
| 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. Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino is the exclusivity case to read on the exception. |
| 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 | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2 directly and explicitly bars a third party from seeking contribution against the employer, even where the employer's own negligence concurred in causing the injury. | 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 | Immunity runs to a contributing employer, meaning one that pays into the state fund. A company that did not pay premiums for the worker may not be immune. | Codified narrow exception: an employer remains liable only for an injury caused by an intentional act done with the conscious purpose of inflicting the injury. |
| Ohio | Federal OSHA: no state plan; monopolistic state workers' comp fund | Statutory employer status is worth checking in Ohio. Third-party claims otherwise turn on premises liability, active participation, retained control and equipment defects. | Exclusivity can be pierced through Ohio's statutory employer-intentional-tort claim. |
| Oklahoma | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | 85A O.S. § 5(A) explicitly extends exclusive-remedy immunity to a 'prime contractor' of the employer and provides that no separate role or persona (other than employer) is relevant for immunity purposes, directly barring third-party contribution against an immune prime contractor. | Exclusivity has a statutory intentional-tort exception requiring a deliberate, specific intent to injure |
| 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 |
| 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 worth checking in Rhode Island, though the qualifying test is not spelled out in the sources behind this entry. | Unusually broad immunity: Rhode Island has NOT adopted a general intentional-injury exception. Even willful, reckless, or intentional employer misconduct does not defeat exclusivity. |
| 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., which may also protect statutory employers |
| South Dakota | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | A general contractor is liable for compensation to a subcontractor's injured employee under § 62-3-10 and that same exposure gives the general contractor exclusive-remedy immunity. | Narrow intentional-tort exception requiring 'substantial certainty' of injury; reckless or even repeated OSHA violations are not enough without more. |
| Tennessee | TOSHA: full state plan, private + public sector | A Tennessee statutory employer (principal contractor) enjoys the SAME exclusive-remedy immunity as the direct employer, even if it never actually had to pay workers-comp benefits, barring third-party contribution against it. | Narrow intentional-tort exception: an employee can sue the employer directly only by proving actual intent to injure, a high bar. |
| 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 | Fault apportioned to the employer in a third-party action creates no employer liability and does not weaken its immunity, which bars third-party contribution. | General exclusivity under §§ 34A-2-101 et seq., which may also protect statutory employers |
| Vermont | Full state plan, private + public sector | 21 V.S.A. § 622 makes workers-comp exclusive against the employer and § 624 governs third-party-recovery mechanics without creating a right of contribution against the employer; the employer's recovery is instead protected via a reimbursement/subrogation lien on the employee's third-party recovery. | Narrow specific-intent-to-injure exception. Vermont has repeatedly refused to adopt the more lenient 'substantial certainty' test used in many other states. |
| 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 the direct employer and any qualifying statutory employer under § 65.2-302 |
| Washington | WISHA: full state plan, private + public sector | Statutory employer status is a live issue in Washington, with Hymas v. UAP Distribution the case on point. | Industrial insurance under Title 51 bars employer negligence claims, with a narrow deliberate intention exception |
| West Virginia | Federal OSHA (no state plan) | Contribution against the employer is barred for ordinary negligence, but allowed where the employer's conduct was willful, wanton, reckless or an intentional tort. | 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 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, claims-consulting firm, or third-party advisory firm.
What do I get for free versus paid?
Free use includes live interactive totals and a watermarked on-screen preview. Paid unlock ($19 per calculator, or $49/month for all five) 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 All Access, 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.