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 doesn't publish a free official full-text statute page (it licenses publication); the text was verified via a Justia mirror; confirm against the official PDF before relying on it. Check for amendments in recent sessions.

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. This is case law interpreting specific policy language, not a Colorado Revised Statutes provision or Division of Insurance regulation, and no such statute or regulation addressing the labor-depreciation question was located.

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

Included for completeness because the labor-depreciation question has been directly litigated in Colorado, but this does not meet the statutory-layer bar described in the research task.

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. Section24-91-103.5). Private contracts: enforceable if voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly made.

For public works contracts, Colo. Rev. Stat. Section24-91-103.5 voids any clause waiving a contractor's right to recover delay costs caused by acts or omissions within the control of the contracting public entity. 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. Section24-91-103.5 (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://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive 50-state matrix (Woods Aitken LLP) specifically on no-damage-for-delay clause enforceability, covering all 50 states with primary citations.

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, one of the shorter periods in this research project.

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 full 2026 experience-rated schedule (all reserve-ratio bands) was not exhaustively verified this pass; the range cited reflects the bands identified during this research and should be checked against the complete CDLE premium rate table for the specific reserve-ratio band in question. Wage base confirmed directly against the official CDLE premium-rates page (cdle.colorado.gov). Confirmed structurally that construction employers get a genuinely different introductory-rate track (3 years vs. 1 year before experience rating applies), consistent with the existing entry; the specific rate figures were not independently re-verified this pass.

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

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Colorado 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

CORRECTED: replaced the flagged off-topic citation with Scott v. Matlack, Inc., Colorado's actual controlling case -- OSHA regulations are admissible as evidence of the standard of care, though 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

CORRECTED: the prior entry (Coors Brewing Co. v. Floyd) was flagged as real but about emotional distress, not OSHA. Scott v. Matlack is Colorado's actual controlling case on this exact question, confirmed real and still cited as recently as 2009.

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. Sections8-41-401 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 -- meaning a third party generally cannot pursue contribution against a statutory employer.

Citation: C.R.S. Sections8-41-401, 8-41-402; Finlay v. Storage Tech. Corp., 764 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1988).

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

CORRECTED: the prior citation (English v. Griffith, 99 P.3d 90 (Colo. App. 2004)) was wrong-topic -- that case is a wrongful-death/suicide case unrelated to workers-comp third-party contribution. Replaced with the real, confirmed, on-point statutory-employer immunity authority.

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.

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

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke.

Distinctive state doctrine

No statutory exceptions to exclusivity at all (an unusually strict baseline)

Colorado is stricter than nearly every other state researched so far: there are no statutory exceptions to the exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy. A narrow common-law intentional-tort exception has been recognized judicially (requiring the employer to have deliberately intended to cause injury and acted directly, not through an agent), but this is not a statutory carve-out the way most other states' exceptions are.

Citation: C.R.S. Section8-41-102 (exclusivity); Section8-41-401, -402 (statutory employer immunity); Schwindt v. Hershey Foods Corp., 81 P.3d 1144 (Colo. App. 2003) (narrow intentional-tort exception).

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

CONFIRMED: exclusivity statute and statutory-employer immunity provisions are real. Schwindt confirmed real -- holds the intentional-tort exception requires the employer to have deliberately intended the injury AND acted directly (not merely through an agent), a narrow standard.