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 This statutory standard superseded Connecticut's earlier common-law broad evidence rule.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 separately mention labor costs or state whether labor may be depreciated. Some industry commentary lists Connecticut among states where labor depreciation is disfavored, and a 2023 putative class action (Grawe v. Trumbull Insurance) alleged unlawful labor depreciation there, but no Connecticut statute, regulation or appellate decision resolving the labor-depreciation question specifically was verified in this research.
The claim that Connecticut affirmatively bars labor depreciation could not be verified against a primary source and is not asserted here; only the general ACV definition in Section 38a-307 is confirmed.
No Connecticut statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Connecticut is identified as one of roughly 15 states barring labor depreciation absent an express policy provision.
No Connecticut statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, a 2023 federal class-action complaint (Grawe v. Trumbull Insurance Co., D. Conn.) identifies Connecticut among roughly 15 states that, by court decision, statute, or regulatory order, preclude insurers from depreciating labor when calculating ACV under a replacement-cost methodology, unless the policy expressly provides for it.
RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No holdback-timing statute found. The labor-depreciation classification comes from a litigation complaint's characterization of Connecticut law rather than a Connecticut statute, regulation, or court decision independently confirmed in this pass -- flagged as a secondary characterization, not a primary Connecticut source.
Whether a no-damages-for-delay clause will be enforced against you, and the deadline for bringing a construction contract claim.
Enforceable, with an active-interference exception requiring an affirmative, willful act, not mere carelessness
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that proving the active-interference exception to a no-damages-for-delay clause requires an affirmative, willful act that unreasonably interfered with the contractor's performance; it does not require proof of bad faith or malice, but demands more than a mistake, an error in judgment, a lack of total effort, or a lack of diligence. The court also reaffirmed four exceptions recognized in its own earlier case law: delay caused by the owner's bad faith, willful conduct, or gross negligence; uncontemplated delays; delays amounting to an intentional abandonment of the contract; and delays from the owner's breach of a fundamental contract obligation.
RESEARCHED from scratch. Confirmed real: the Connecticut Supreme Court held a contractor's delay-damages claims against a town could not overcome the no-damages-for-delay clause -- establishing/construing the narrow 'active interference' exception.
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.
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.
Confirmed directly against portal.ct.gov: 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. No separate construction new-employer rate was found for Connecticut.
CONFIRMED AND EXPANDED: new-employer rate and wage base were already accurate. Added the experience-rated range, which was missing, confirmed directly against portal.ct.gov.
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.
Two sources gave differing new-construction thresholds ($400,000 in an older state library summary versus $1,000,000 in a current compiled DOL.gov reference, reflecting a 2021 statutory increase under Public Act 21-43); the $1,000,000/$100,000 figures are the more current and should be verified directly against Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53 or the CT DOL prevailing wage page before publication.
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.
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.
Confirmed evidence, not negligence per se: directly classified in a published legal treatise on negligence per se law
A published treatise on negligence per se law directly states that Connecticut (along with Maine) treats OSHA violations as evidence of negligence, not negligence per se; resolving the earlier uncertainty, which had been based only on loose secondary-source blog language. Connecticut's general negligence-per-se framework (a defendant who violates a statutory duty is negligent as a matter of law unless there is a valid excuse or justification, per Connecticut Civil Jury Instruction 3.6-14 and Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)) applies to statutes with a specific protected class and intended harm; but OSHA regulations specifically are treated as evidence supporting a negligence finding rather than triggering the negligence-per-se instruction.
CORRECTED and IMPROVED: replaced the prior citation (Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 665 A.2d 1341 (1995), a lead-paint landlord-liability case unrelated to OSHA) with Wendland v. Ridgefield Construction Services, Inc., 184 Conn. 173 (1981) -- Connecticut's actual controlling case on this exact question, confirmed real, directly on point (a construction trench-collapse case), and still cited as recently as 2014-2015.
No statutory-employer shield described; third-party claims focus on premises possession/notice, retained control, negligent undertaking, products, 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.
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.
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 Section31-284(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.
RESEARCHED (not just linked): the prior entry honestly flagged that the specific exception mechanism was unknown, hypothesizing an intentional-tort/substantial-certainty test without confirming it. That hypothesis is now confirmed correct and cited to the controlling case.
Uncorrected-citation benefit penalty (C.G.S. §31-307(b)), plus statutory design-professional/insurer safety-matter limitations: now confirmed with the actual subsections
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: a third state found (after Kentucky and New Mexico) with a direct safety-violation-to-benefit-amount linkage. Separately, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293's design-professional/insurer limitations are now confirmed with their actual subsections: 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: the same basic structure as Georgia's and Missouri's carve-outs. 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; meaning Connecticut protects insurers, self-insurance organizations, AND unions from liability for safety-inspection activity, a combination not found in this form elsewhere in this dataset. 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, litigation 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.