Construction Claim Rules in Colorado

Statutory interest rate

8% / year, compounded annually

Statutory rate for money wrongfully withheld or due on a written contract, applying to both prejudgment and postjudgment interest unless the contract fixes a different rate. A party may instead elect to recover the actual gain realized by whoever withheld the money, in lieu of the 8% rate.

Compounding: Compounded annually

Citation: Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 5-12-101, 5-12-102, 5-12-106

Source: https://leg.colorado.gov/colorado-revised-statutes

Colorado does not publish a free official full text statute page, since it licenses publication, so the text here follows a Justia mirror. Confirm against the official PDF and check recent sessions for amendments.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when the money becomes due, generally the breach date

C.R.S. § 5-12-102(2) allows interest on money due on a contract, bill or note from the time it became due, which for a construction contract is generally the date payment was owed or the date of breach.

Citation: C.R.S. § 5-12-102(2)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-5/interest-rates/article-12/section-5-12-102/

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

From the date of loss, framed as wrongful withholding

C.R.S. § 5-12-102(1) treats property damage as money or property wrongfully withheld and allows interest from the date of the wrongful withholding, which is effectively the date of loss. Subsection (3) confirms this applies even if the amount was unliquidated (not yet fixed) at that time.

Citation: C.R.S. § 5-12-102(1), (3)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-5/interest-rates/article-12/section-5-12-102/

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule

Considers replacement cost, depreciation, original cost, expert opinion and market factors rather than one fixed formula. A separate consumer-protection statute regulates insurer depreciation/replacement-cost practices procedurally without itself defining ACV.

Citation: Nebraska Drillers v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 123 F. Supp. 678 (D. Colo. 1954); C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(3)(h)

Source: https://leg.colorado.gov/colorado-revised-statutes

ACV statute or regulation

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.

Basham v. United Services Automobile Association, 2017 WL 3217768 (D. Colo. 2017), held that labor cost depreciation is permitted in an ACV calculation where the policy defines ACV as the amount it would cost to repair or replace covered property subject to a deduction for depreciation, without limiting depreciation to physical deterioration and obsolescence. That decision interprets specific policy language. Colorado has no statute or Division of Insurance regulation on the labor-depreciation question.

Citation: No governing statute or regulation identified; see Basham v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2017 WL 3217768 (D. Colo. 2017) (case law only)

Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/00219833.pdf

Recoverable depreciation holdback

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.

Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 10-4-110.8 defines recoverable depreciation as the difference between the cost to replace insured property and its actual cash value. Under subsection (11)(c)(II), insurers must allow policyholders at least 365 days after the expiration of additional living expense coverage to replace the damaged property and receive recoverable depreciation. Under subsection (13)(d), for a total loss resulting from a declared wildfire disaster, that window extends to the greater of 365 days after ALE expiration or 36 months after the insurer's first actual-cash-value payment. The statute governs timing rather than the depreciation calculation method itself.

Citation: Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 10-4-110.8

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-10/property-and-casualty-insurance/article-4/part-1/section-10-4-110-8/

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Public contracts: void by statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-91-103.5). Private contracts: enforceable if voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made.

For public works contracts, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-91-103.5(1)(a) makes void and unenforceable any clause that waives, releases or extinguishes a contractor's right to recover costs or damages, or to obtain an equitable adjustment, for delay caused in whole or in part by acts or omissions within the control of the contracting public entity. Subsection (2) preserves provisions that bar recovery for delay the contractor caused, that require notice of delay, that set reasonable liquidated damages or that provide for arbitration. For private contracts, W.C. James, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 347 F. Supp. 381 (D. Colo. 1972) held no-damages-for-delay clauses enforceable so long as voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made and not the result of willful or negligent acts or omissions. Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008) confirms such clauses are strictly construed against the party seeking their benefit.

Citation: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-91-103.5 (public); W.C. James, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 347 F. Supp. 381 (D. Colo. 1972); Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008) (private).

Source: https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_24-91-103.5

Construction contract filing deadline

3 years for a contract action

Colorado's general limitation period for contract actions, including personal contracts and actions under the Uniform Commercial Code, is 3 years from accrual, among the shortest in the country. Two deadlines sit in front of that one on most construction claims. A mechanic's lien and a payment bond claim each run on their own, far shorter clock, counted from last furnishing rather than from breach and missing either one removes the security while leaving the contract claim alive but unsecured. Check those dates first. Accrual is the other half of the question: the period runs from breach, which on a payment dispute is usually the date payment came due rather than the date the work was done.

Citation: C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(a)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-13/limitation-of-actions/article-80/section-13-80-101/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Taxable wage base $30,600 (2026); construction introductory rates 3.05% to 6.29%

Colorado's 2026 chargeable (taxable) wage base rose to $30,600, up from $27,200 in 2025. New employers pay an industry-specific introductory premium rate rather than a single flat new-employer rate; for 2026 the combined introductory rate for general construction is about 3.05% (1.53% base plus a 0.17% support rate plus a 1.35% solvency surcharge) and for heavy construction about 6.285%. Experience-rated employers are assigned to reserve-ratio bands with rates that, including solvency surcharges, can range from roughly 0.56% up to over 7%.

Citation: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), Unemployment Insurance Premiums (2026)

Source: https://cdle.colorado.gov/employers/unemployment-insurance-premiums/introductory-rates

Last checked: 2026-08-26

The experience-rated range shown is approximate; check the full CDLE premium rate table for your reserve-ratio band. Construction employers stay on the introductory rate longer than other new employers.

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory rates apply; Pinnacol is a competitive (not exclusive) state fund

Colorado is an NCCI state. Private insurers use NCCI advisory loss costs and standard classification codes, filed with and regulated by the Colorado Division of Insurance. Pinnacol Assurance is a state-chartered, not-for-profit workers' compensation insurer that competes alongside private carriers; Colorado is not a monopolistic state and employers may buy coverage from any authorized private insurer or from Pinnacol.

Citation: NCCI, Colorado state rate/rule filings; Colorado Division of Insurance

Source: https://doi.colorado.gov/insurance-products/other-products/workers-compensation-insurance

Prevailing wage law

State prevailing-wage law applies to contracts of $500,000 or more

Colorado enacted a modern state prevailing wage law through SB19-196 (2019), codified in the Colorado Revised Statutes, requiring weekly payment of prevailing wages to laborers and mechanics on qualifying state-funded public construction contracts of $500,000 or more that are not otherwise covered by federal Davis-Bacon rates and are not awarded by the Colorado Department of Transportation.

Citation: Colo. Rev. Stat. (SB19-196); Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics

Source: https://cdle.colorado.gov/dlss-home-page/wage-and-hour-law/prevailing-wages

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Modified comparative fault, recovery barred at 50% or more fault

Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is 50% or more at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing.

Citation: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111(1), (3) (bar); § 13-21-111.5 (pro rata liability, nonparty designation); § 13-21-111.5(5) (jury instruction on the effect of the finding)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2023/title-13/damages-and-limitations-on-actions/article-21/part-1/section-13-21-111/

Verified against: statute text of Colo. Rev. Stat. s 13-21-111 and s 13-21-111.5, including s 13-21-111.5(5), which frames the jury instruction as between the plaintiff and the defendants

Non-economic damages cap

Non-economic damages capped at $1,500,000

Raised from roughly $642,180 to $1,500,000 for claims accruing on or after 1 Jan 2025. The next inflation adjustment is scheduled for 1 Jan 2028. Claims accruing earlier fall under the older indexed figure. Medical malpractice is capped separately.

Citation: C.R.S. § 13-21-102.5(3), as amended by HB24-1472

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Colorado has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under federal jurisdiction the citation is issued by an OSHA area office and contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Federal OSHA does not cover state and local government employees, so a public employee injured on a public job falls outside it. Reporting deadlines are a work-related fatality within 8 hours, an inpatient hospitalisation, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours. For a construction claim the inspection file matters more than the citation: photographs, measurements, witness statements and the inspector's narrative are usually obtainable and are often the best contemporaneous record of the site.

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

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

OSHA regulations are admissible in Colorado as evidence of the industry standard of care, but not as a basis for negligence per se.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that its earlier Canape v. Petersen decision does not preclude admission of OSH Act evidence in a negligence suit and that it is proper for a trial court to admit OSHA regulations as evidence of the industry standard of care. The case arose from a worker who fell from the top of a tanker truck while loading hot asphalt.

Citation: Scott v. Matlack, Inc., 39 P.3d 1160 (Colo. 2002).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2002/99sc415-0.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

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.

Under C.R.S. §§ 8-41-401 and 8-41-402, where an entity constitutes a statutory employer, it is immune from civil liability for damages resulting from the employee's industrial injury. Finlay v. Storage Tech. Corp., 764 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1988) confirms this immunity applies even where the tortfeasor is the employee's statutory employer (as opposed to actual/direct employer) and even where the employee already received workers-comp benefits from the actual employer, so a third party generally cannot pursue contribution against a statutory employer.

Citation: C.R.S. §§ 8-41-401, 8-41-402; Finlay v. Storage Tech. Corp., 764 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1988).

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

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General immunity under §§8-40-101 et seq. for employers and qualifying statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§8-40-101 et seq. generally immunizes the employer and qualifying statutory employers. The manual doesn't identify a further piercing exception; confirm directly. In practice exclusivity takes the direct employer off the tort table entirely, whatever the OSHA file shows. The claim runs against the other parties on the site: the general contractor, the owner, another subcontractor, an equipment manufacturer. The employer or its carrier then asserts a lien against whatever the worker recovers from those parties, so the figure the worker actually keeps is the recovery less the lien, the fee and the costs. Whether the lien is reduced for the cost of obtaining the recovery is a separate state question worth asking early, because it moves the net more than most people expect.

Citation: Colo. Rev. Stat. §§8-40-101 et seq.; Finlay v. Storage Technology Corp., 764 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1988).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1988/87sc93-0.html

Distinctive state doctrine

No statutory exceptions to exclusivity. Even intentional torts by a co-employee are covered by the Act.

Colorado has no statutory exceptions to the exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy. In Kandt v. Evans the Colorado Supreme Court held that intentional torts arising in the course of employment, including intentional infliction of emotional distress by a co-employee, fall within the Act, so the co-employee cannot be sued in tort. The only judicial opening runs against the employer itself: Schwindt v. Hershey Foods Corp. allows a common law claim where the employer or its alter ego deliberately intended to cause the injury and acted directly rather than through an agent. Gross negligence is not enough.

Citation: C.R.S. § 8-41-102 (exclusivity); §§ 8-41-401, -402 (statutory employer immunity); Kandt v. Evans, 645 P.2d 1300 (Colo. 1982); Schwindt v. Hershey Foods Corp., 81 P.3d 1144 (Colo. App. 2003)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/1245806.html