Construction Claim Rules in Arkansas

Statutory interest rate

6% / year default (pre-judgment, contract silent); Fed primary credit rate + 2% or contract rate, whichever is greater (post-judgment)

Where a construction contract doesn't specify its own rate, the statutory default is 6% per year. Once judgment is entered on a contract claim, the rate becomes the greater of the contract's own rate or the Federal Reserve primary credit rate plus 2 points; for non-contract judgments, it's simply the Fed rate plus 2. All rates are capped at 17%/year under the state constitution. Arkansas's prejudgment-interest rate specifically (as distinct from the clear postjudgment rate) is flagged by Arkansas practitioners as a genuinely unsettled question, with courts historically applying either the contract rate or the 6% default depending on the case; treat any prejudgment figure as an approximation pending confirmation from case law.

Compounding: Not specified in the statute; treated as simple interest absent contrary case law.

Citation: Ark. Code Ann. § 4-57-101 (contract default); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-65-114 (judgment interest)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-5/chapter-65/subchapter-1/section-16-65-114/

Last checked: 2026-08-25

A law-firm article title directly confirms Arkansas prejudgment interest rate selection is considered a 'vexing question with no clear answer' among practitioners; the postjudgment rate under § 16-65-114 is solid, but treat the prejudgment figure as an approximation. Cross-checked the Fed primary credit rate + 2% against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately 5.75 postjudgment (or contract rate if greater); 6% predjudgment default%. This confirms the formula and current inputs; it is not a substitute for each state's own officially certified/published figure where one exists.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

As of right if the amount is a 'sum certain' or fixed by the contract; otherwise no automatic accrual date

Arkansas's leading case, Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. Troutman Oil Co., holds prejudgment interest is not recoverable unless damages are either liquidated as a dollar sum or ascertainable by fixed standards, meaning the amount is definitely ascertainable by mathematical computation or the evidence makes it possible to compute the amount without relying on opinion or discretion. Once that test is met, interest generally runs from when the claim accrued, in practice the payment-due or breach date, though this specific opinion focused on whether interest applies at all rather than pinpointing the start date.

Citation: Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. Troutman Oil Co., 327 Ark. 448, 938 S.W.2d 565 (1997)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/1997/96-1084.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same ascertainability test as contract claims: Arkansas doesn't limit prejudgment interest to contract disputes

Woodline Motor Freight expressly holds that an award of prejudgment interest is not dependent on whether the action is in contract or tort; the same liquidated/ascertainable-by-fixed-standards test governs property-damage claims. Where the loss amount is fixed and calculable (e.g., a specific repair cost), interest can run from that ascertainable date, essentially the date of loss.

Citation: Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. Troutman Oil Co., 327 Ark. 448, 938 S.W.2d 565 (1997)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/1997/96-1084.html

Actual Cash Value rule

Replacement cost minus depreciation (materials only, labor cannot be depreciated)

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that labor of any kind related to repairing, rebuilding, or replacing covered property cannot be depreciated when calculating ACV; only materials may be depreciated. This was confirmed by an Arkansas Insurance Department bulletin issued the same year.

Citation: Adams v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 Ark. 475, 430 S.W.3d 675 (Ark. 2013); Ark. Ins. Dep't Bulletin No. 13A-2013

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2013/cv-13-456-1.html

The link above was upgraded in a follow-up pass to the free, full opinion text on Justia; it previously pointed to a law firm's summary article.

ACV statute or regulation

Arkansas has a statute that permits, rather than restricts, depreciation of labor, subject to a Commissioner-approved policy disclosure and a written explanation requirement.

Ark. Code Ann. Section 23-88-106, enacted by Act 785 of 2017 and effective August 1, 2017, defines expense depreciation as depreciation of the cost of goods, materials, labor and services necessary to replace, repair or rebuild damaged property. The statute allows an insurer to apply expense depreciation, including to labor, only if the policy provides notice of that practice in policy language approved by the Insurance Commissioner, and only for new and renewed policies going forward. When expense depreciation is applied to a loss, the insurer must provide the insured a written explanation of how the expense depreciation was calculated. This statute effectively reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court's earlier holding in Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Goodner, 477 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. 2015), which had barred labor depreciation as against public policy; Arkansas therefore now sits in the minority of jurisdictions that affirmatively permit labor depreciation, conditioned on disclosure.

Citation: Ark. Code Ann. Section 23-88-106 (enacted by Act 785 of 2017, eff. Aug. 1, 2017)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-23/subtitle-3/chapter-88/subchapter-1/section-23-88-106/

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Arkansas statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Arkansas explicitly permits it for new and renewed policies since 2017, provided pre-approved policy language is used.

No Arkansas statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, effective August 1, 2017, Arkansas law permits labor costs to be depreciated in determining ACV for new and renewed policies, provided certain pre-approved language is included in the policy.

Citation: Ark. Code Ann. Section23-88-106.

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

RESEARCHED from scratch. No holdback-timing statute found; the labor-depreciation statute citation is from a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey, not independently re-verified against the primary statute text in this pass.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable with restrained approval, but doesn't protect against the beneficiary's own willful delay and may not bind third parties

The Arkansas Supreme Court enforces a no-damages-for-delay clause but gives it only restrained approval given its harsh effect, construing it strictly. A contractor doesn't assume the business risk of delay costs caused by the clause's beneficiary itself; generally, the beneficiary's own act causing the delay must be willful or intentional before a court will decline to assess delay costs against it. The clause also only binds the parties to the specific contract it appears in; a third party (such as a subcontractor under a separate agreement without the same clause) may still recover as an intended beneficiary.

Citation: Little Rock Wastewater Util. v. Larry Moyer Trucking, Inc., 321 Ark. 303, 902 S.W.2d 760 (1995)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/1995/94-1455-0.html

Construction contract filing deadline

5 years to enforce a written obligation

Arkansas's limitations period to enforce a written obligation, duty, or right is 5 years from accrual, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim; partial payment or a written acknowledgment of default can toll (restart) this deadline.

Citation: Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-111

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-5/chapter-56/subchapter-1/section-16-56-111/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

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.

Confirmed via two independent 2026-dated sources; the official dws.arkansas.gov page itself still displays stale 2023-era language (citing a 3.1% new-employer rate) that does not reflect the current 2026 structure, so it was not used as the primary source for this pass despite being the .gov domain.

Citation: Arkansas Division of Workforce Services (DWS).

Source: https://dws.arkansas.gov/workforce-services/unemployment/employer-ui-information/employer-ui-contributions/

Last checked: 2026-08-26

CORRECTED: removed the "(2025 figure)" flag and confirmed the 2.0%+0.2% structure holds for 2026 too, plus added the experience-rated range which was missing. Worth flagging for future maintenance: Arkansas's own official page has visibly stale content (2023 language) sitting on a current URL, so don't assume .gov freshness without checking the actual text.

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply

Arkansas is an NCCI state. Private carriers writing workers' compensation in Arkansas rely on NCCI's advisory loss costs and standard classification codes, filed with and regulated by the Arkansas Insurance Department. There is no exclusive state fund.

Citation: NCCI State Advisory Forum, Arkansas

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Documents/II_StateAdvisoryForumState_AR_2024.pdf

Prevailing wage law

No state prevailing-wage law (repealed 2017)

Arkansas repealed its state prevailing wage law for public works construction through Act 1068 of 2017. Public construction funded solely with state or local money in Arkansas is no longer subject to a state-mandated wage floor beyond ordinary minimum wage law. Federal Davis-Bacon requirements continue to apply to any project receiving federal funds.

Citation: Arkansas Act 1068 of 2017

Source: https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=/ACTS/2017R/Public/ACT1068.pdf

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Arkansas has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667 (State Plan roster)

Source: https://www.osha.gov/stateplans

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Arkansas's high court holds OSHA violations constitute evidence of negligence, applicable without regard to any employer-employee relationship, not negligence per se.

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that a jury may consider violations of the OSH Act as evidence of negligence without regard to any employer-employee relationship -- a broader admissibility rule than states that limit OSHA evidence to employer-employee cases.

Citation: Dunn v. Brimer, 259 Ark. 855, 537 S.W.2d 164, 166 (1976).

Source: https://storage.googleapis.com/jnl-bcls-j-bclr-files/journals/1/articles/232/63a30c0a100a2.pdf

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive, exhaustively-footnoted 2020 Boston College Law Review survey of all 50 states + DC on this exact question, cross-checked against the underlying case for accuracy where feasible.

Third-party contribution against the employer

Ark. Code Ann. Section11-9-410 governs third-party actions and gives the employer/carrier a statutory lien on an employee's third-party recovery -- but courts have recently made that lien difficult for the employer/carrier to actually collect via the 'made whole' doctrine, which prioritizes full compensation to the injured employee first.

Under Section11-9-410, either the employee or the employer/insurer may pursue an action against a responsible third party; if the employee initiates it, the employer can intervene and assert a statutory lien for benefits paid. However, the 'made whole' doctrine (recognized in recent Arkansas case law) has made recovery on that Section410 lien an uphill battle in practice, because courts require the employee to be fully compensated for all damages before the employer/carrier can recover against the third-party proceeds.

Citation: Ark. Code Ann. Section11-9-410, Section11-9-105.

Source: https://www.alfainternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2023-Arkansas-Workers-Compensation-Compendium.pdf

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Moses v. Bridgeman, 273 Ark. 244 (1981)) could not be located or confirmed in any search. Replaced with real, confirmed, directly on-point third-party-action statute, including the practically important 'made whole' doctrine limitation on employer lien recovery.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Employer loses exclusive-remedy protection where its acts causing injury are willful and intentional, or where the employer is uninsured.

Ark. Code Ann. Section11-9-105(a) makes workers' comp exclusive, but Section11-9-105(b)(1) allows an uninsured employer's employee to elect compensation or a tort suit. Separately, where the employer's acts causing the injury are deemed willful and intentional, the employer loses exclusive-remedy protection -- an old Arkansas Supreme Court decision reasoned an employer who intentionally and maliciously injures a worker should be in no better position than a third party outside the compensation system.

Citation: Ark. Code Ann. Section11-9-105(a)-(b); Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Co., 217 Ark. 350, 230 S.W.2d 28 (1950).

Source: https://www.alfainternational.com/compendium/workers-compensation/arkansas/

RESEARCHED and CORRECTED: the prior entry honestly flagged the exception as unknown, and its citation, 'D.B. Griffin Warehouse, Inc. v. Sanders, 2002 Ark. 193,' had the wrong citation number (real is 349 Ark. 94 (2002)) and is a premises-liability roof-fall case addressing a different question (independent-contractor duty), not the intentional-injury exception itself.

Distinctive state doctrine

Statutory-employer immunity turns on who actually paid the benefits, plus a distinctive licensing-based statutory-employer trigger

In Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Constr. Co. (1998), the Arkansas Supreme Court held a prime contractor is not the statutory employer of an injured worker where the subcontractor itself paid the workers' comp benefits; because in that situation there is no real or quasi-employment relationship between the prime contractor and the injured employee, the injured worker may recover tort damages against the prime contractor. This 'immunity only if the principal actually pays' approach differs from states like Colorado or Virginia, which extend statutory-employer immunity regardless of who pays. Separately, a 2005 amendment to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-402 created a distinctive licensing-based trigger: in construction settings, any company that hires a contractor for a job requiring a license is the statutory employer of an unlicensed contractor it hires: tying statutory-employer status to the hired contractor's licensing status rather than the usual 'regular business' test used elsewhere. Arkansas also loses exclusive-remedy protection where the employer's acts causing injury are deemed willful and intentional, and licensed professional employer organizations and their clients are treated as joint employers entitled to shared exclusive-remedy protection.

Citation: Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Constr. Co., 333 Ark. 381 (1998); Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-402 (2005 amendment, licensing-based trigger); Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105 (willful/intentional exception)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2005/ca05-650.html