Every figure below is the researched rule for Connecticut, with its citation and a direct link to the official source so you can confirm it yourself. Covers statutory interest and when it starts accruing, how Actual Cash Value is determined and whether labor can be depreciated, whether a “no damages for delay” clause is enforceable and how long you have to file, the state-specific inputs behind a fully burdened labor rate and who can be held liable for a construction-site injury.
The rate itself and the date interest starts running, which differs by claim type in most states.
Up to 10% / year, discretionary
Not an automatic entitlement; courts award interest and choose the rate up to this statutory ceiling, only where withholding of money is found wrongful. A separate lower 5%/year discretionary rate applies only to hospital-services debt.
Discretionary: from when the money became due and payable, but only on a finding of 'wrongful' detention
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a lets a court award interest as damages for the detention of money after it becomes payable, but only where the court finds the detention was wrongful. Connecticut courts have withheld this finding where damages resemble ordinary tort/negligence damages rather than a specific, identifiable sum owed; when the finding is made for a straightforward contract debt, interest generally runs from when the money became due.
Both the award itself and the accrual date are discretionary, contingent on the wrongfulness finding; don't assume an automatic date-of-breach right.
Same discretionary 'wrongful detention' mechanism, generally limited to a specific, identifiable sum rather than open-ended tort damages
The same statute applies to property-damage claims where the loss can be framed as a wrongfully withheld, identifiable sum (for example, a fixed repair cost); Connecticut case law has been reluctant to extend it to damages that read more like ordinary negligence damages. Where it applies, interest generally runs from when that sum became fixed and payable, essentially the date of loss.
How ACV is determined, whether labor cost can be depreciated and the rules on releasing withheld recoverable depreciation.
Replacement cost minus depreciation (statutory)
Defined directly by statute: cost to repair/replace with like kind and quality, minus reasonable depreciation for wear and tear. This statutory standard superseded Connecticut's earlier common-law broad evidence rule.
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.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 38a-307 sets the mandatory standard form fire insurance policy and defines actual cash value as the amount it would cost to repair or replace the building with material of like kind and quality, minus reasonable depreciation, where depreciation is defined as a decrease in value of real property over time due to wear and tear. The statute does not mention labor costs or say whether labor may be depreciated. A 2023 federal class action (Grawe v. Trumbull Insurance Co.) alleged that labor depreciation is unlawful in Connecticut, but that is an allegation, not a ruling. Connecticut courts and regulators have not settled the labor question.
No Connecticut statute sets a holdback release deadline and Connecticut has not settled whether labor may be depreciated.
No Connecticut statute or regulation sets a deadline for releasing withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On labor, the standard fire policy statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-307, defines actual cash value without mentioning labor. A 2023 federal class action complaint (Grawe v. Trumbull Insurance Co.) alleges Connecticut bars labor depreciation absent an express policy provision, but a complaint's allegation is not a ruling. With no statute in play the policy is the whole of the law here, so read three things in it: what proof of completed repairs the insurer can require, how long the insured has to claim the withheld depreciation and whether that period can be extended in writing. Policy deadlines commonly run from 180 days to two years from the date of loss and they are enforced as written. Ask for the extension before the period runs rather than after.
Whether a no-damages-for-delay clause will be enforced against you and the deadline for bringing a construction contract claim.
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.
In C & H Electric, Inc. v. Town of Bethel, an electrical contractor on a high school renovation sought added costs after the town's asbestos abatement delayed its work. The contract made a time extension the sole remedy for delay but allowed recovery for the town's active interference. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that active interference requires an affirmative, wilful act that unreasonably interfered with the contractor's work and is more than a mistake, error in judgment or lack of diligence. Bad faith or gross negligence is not required. The court held the town's conduct did not meet that standard and did not fall within either of the two judicially created exceptions to no-damages-for-delay clauses adopted in White Oak Corp. v. Department of Transportation.
6 years for an account or a simple, implied, or written contract
Connecticut's limitations period covers an account, a simple contract, an implied contract and a contract in writing alike at 6 years from when the right of action accrues, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim. 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.
The state-specific rates and requirements that sit underneath a fully burdened hourly labor cost.
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.
Charged rates for 2026 are reduced by a solvency adjustment factor of 1.125 to offset the impact of a 2024 taxable wage base increase, a temporary measure scheduled to phase out through 2027.
NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply
Connecticut is an NCCI state. Private carriers writing workers' compensation in Connecticut use NCCI's advisory loss costs and standard classification system, filed with and regulated by the Connecticut Insurance Department. There is no exclusive state fund.
State prevailing-wage law, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53
Connecticut has its own prevailing wage law under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53, covering construction, alteration and repair of public works by the state or a political subdivision. Coverage generally applies to new construction contracts of $1,000,000 or more and to remodeling, repair, rehabilitation, alteration or refinishing contracts of $100,000 or more; contractors must certify pay scales and submit certified payrolls to the Labor Commissioner.
Published sources give different new construction thresholds: $400,000 in an older state library summary against $1,000,000 in a current federal compilation, reflecting a 2021 increase under Public Act 21-43. The $1,000,000 and $100,000 figures are the current ones. Confirm them against Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-53 or the state Department of Labor before relying on them.
OSHA enforcement structure, how much weight an OSHA violation carries in a negligence case and whether an injured worker's own employer can be pulled back in.
Modified comparative fault, recovery barred above 50% fault (51% bar)
Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is more than 50% at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault still recovers half.
Connecticut names its comparison set inside the operative subsection rather than leaving it to be inferred: the parties sued plus settled or released persons under s 52-572h(n). A person outside that set does not enter the comparison, so an employer immune under workers' compensation does not help the worker clear the bar. Oregon reaches the same place by a different route.
One subsection could remove comparative fault from a site claim altogether. s 52-572h(o) provides that contributory negligence is not a defence to recklessness. Where a jury finds the defendant's conduct reckless, there is no apportionment between the parties at all and the worker's own share stops mattering. On a construction site, conduct that supports a wilful OSHA violation is the kind of evidence that puts recklessness in play. No percentage-based calculator can model an all-or-nothing switch of that sort.
Two further points. Under s 52-572h(c) and (d) each party is liable only for its proportionate share. But s 52-572h(g) lets the court reallocate an uncollectible share of NONECONOMIC damages among the remaining defendants, capped by each defendant's own percentage. Oregon has a comparable reallocation rule; most several-liability states have none.
No general cap on non-economic damages
Most states cap non-economic damages only in medical malpractice actions, which does not reach a third-party construction claim. Economic losses, medical bills, lost wages, future earning capacity, are not capped by these statutes.
CONN-OSHA; public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA
Connecticut operates CONN-OSHA, an OSHA-approved state plan covering public-sector employees only. Private construction sites remain under federal OSHA. That split decides where the file lives. A private construction site is inspected by a federal OSHA area office, with any citation contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. A public employer on the same kind of work answers to the state plan instead, before the state's own review body. Reporting deadlines are the same either way: 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.
OSHA violations are evidence of negligence in Connecticut, not negligence per se. A subcontractor that controls the area can be liable to another employer's worker.
In Wendland v. Ridgefield Construction Services, Inc., a carpenter employed by the general contractor was injured when an unshored trench wall cut by the excavation subcontractor collapsed on him. The Connecticut Supreme Court held the subcontractor was responsible for complying with the excavation standards because it controlled the area, even though the injured man worked for another employer on the site. It then held the negligence per se instruction was error: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-369(b) and 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4) both say the safety acts do not enlarge or diminish common law rights, duties or liabilities and a negligence per se instruction changes the standard of care. The regulations remain admissible as evidence of the standard of care, which can give the jury helpful guidance.
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.
Section 31-291 makes a principal employer liable for compensation when it procures work through a contractor or subcontractor and it withholds immunity from a civil action by the injured employee unless the principal employer has paid compensation benefits for the injury that is the subject of the action. In Gonzalez v. O & G Industries, Inc., workers injured in a power plant explosion sued the general contractor after collecting benefits through the contractor-controlled insurance program the general contractor had funded. The Supreme Court held the general contractor had paid compensation benefits within the meaning of § 31-291 and was immune. Where the upstream contractor did not pay the benefits, the worker's claim against it proceeds under ordinary rules: premises possession and notice, retained control, negligent undertaking, product defect and independent contractual duties. General supervisory authority over a project is treated as distinct from control over the manner and means of the work, which is the dividing line in retained-control claims.
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.
General Statutes § 31-284(a) is a total bar to common-law employer suits with one narrow exception. Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. established two paths: (1) the employer actually intended to injure the employee (actual intent), or (2) the employer intentionally created a dangerous condition it knew was substantially certain to cause injury (substantial certainty). Ordinary negligence and safety-code violations, without more, do not qualify. 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.
Higher benefits when an injury follows an uncorrected OSHA citation (C.G.S. § 31-307(b)), plus limits on design professional and safety-inspection liability (C.G.S. § 31-293(c)-(d))
Under C.G.S. § 31-307(b), if an employee is injured due to the employer's violation of a state or federal OSHA regulation for which the employer had previously been cited but had not corrected, the employee receives weekly compensation equal to 100% of average weekly earnings, rather than the standard reduced percentage. Separately, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293's design professional and insurer limitations work as follows: subsection (c) immunizes a 'construction design professional' (defined as a licensed architect, licensed/exempt engineer, or a corporation organized to render either of those professional services) retained to perform professional services on a construction project, along with employees assisting them on site, from liability for a construction-project injury otherwise compensable under workers' comp. Subsection (d) separately and distinctly immunizes the furnishing of, or failure to furnish, safety inspections or safety advisory services by three specific parties: (1) an insurer providing workers' comp insurance to the employer, (2) a self-insurance service organization under a safety-services contract with the employer, or (3) a union representing the employer's employees; so insurers, self-insurance organizations and unions are all protected from liability for safety-inspection activity. Connecticut also recognizes a narrow 'willful and serious misconduct' exception to exclusivity requiring conduct that rises to recklessness: an extreme departure from ordinary care with conscious knowledge of serious danger: not merely negligence, even gross negligence.
ClaimDuke's calculators compute delay and extended overhead (Eichleay), fully burdened labor rates, ACV/RCV property loss, claim interest and construction-injury settlement ranges. Every calculation is free and live; a documented, citation-backed report is $19.
This page is reference information for your own verification. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for confirming the current rule with the official source linked above or with counsel. Several states' interest rates float and reset on a schedule (monthly, quarterly or annually), so always check the live source for the figure as of today rather than relying on what is shown here. Which rule actually applies to your specific claim is itself a legal question this page cannot answer for you.
