Construction Claim Rules in Delaware

Statutory interest rate

5 points above the Fed discount rate (contract default, capped); same formula or contract rate, whichever is less (post-judgment)

Where a written agreement doesn't set its own rate, the default legal rate is 5 percentage points above the Federal Reserve discount rate (including any surcharge). A written agreement may set a rate up to that same ceiling, except for loans over $100,000 not secured by the borrower's primary residence, where the cap is removed entirely (potentially relevant to larger commercial construction disputes). Postjudgment interest is the same formula or the contract rate, whichever is less.

Compounding: Not specified in the statute; Delaware Court of Chancery has discretion over simple vs. compound prejudgment interest in equity cases, but for a straightforward law-side contract claim the statute itself is silent.

Citation: 6 Del. C. § 2301

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/delaware/title-6/chapter-23/section-2301/

Last checked: 2026-08-25

Cross-checked the Fed discount rate + 5 points against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately 8.75 (5 points above the discount rate), subject to the statutory cap and contract-rate comparison%. 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

From when payment was due, following the general compensation principle that delay itself must be compensated

Delaware's Supreme Court has explained that interest accumulates from the date payment was due the plaintiff, because full compensation requires an allowance for the detention of the compensation awarded, citing Moskowitz v. Mayor & Council of Wilmington. In practice this is the date payment became due under the contract, though a specific damages figure may still need to be determined by the trial court.

Citation: Moskowitz v. Mayor & Council of Wilmington; discussed in Brandywine Smyrna, Inc. v. Millennium Builders, LLC, 34 A.3d 482 (Del. 2011)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/2011/53-2011.html

The link goes to Brandywine Smyrna, the more recent, directly-linkable opinion that quotes and applies the Moskowitz rule; an independently linkable copy of Moskowitz itself wasn't located this pass.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Conditional: only available with a qualifying pretrial settlement demand, then from the date of injury

Delaware's tort prejudgment-interest statute is narrower than a simple date-of-loss rule. It requires the plaintiff to have made a written settlement demand at least 30 days before trial, in an amount less than the final judgment; only if that condition is met does interest run from the date of injury. Without a qualifying demand, no prejudgment interest applies to the tort/property-damage claim.

Citation: 6 Del. C. § 2301(d)

Source: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c023/

This is a real, easy-to-miss procedural gate: failing to make a timely, sufficiently low written settlement demand can forfeit prejudgment interest entirely on an otherwise strong property-damage claim.

Actual Cash Value rule

Fair market value, broad-evidence style (replacement cost is evidence, not the deciding measure)

The Delaware Supreme Court held fair market value, what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, is the proper ACV standard, expressly rejecting replacement cost as determinative on its own ('not a synonym' for fair market value). Appraisals, owner testimony, assessments and replacement-cost evidence are all admissible to help the fact-finder reach a value, with the trial judge weighing the evidence.

Citation: Metropolitan Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Carmen Holding Co., 220 A.2d 778 (Del. 1966)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1966/220-a-2d-778-3.html

ACV statute or regulation

No Delaware statute defines the ACV computation formula; Delaware has adopted the general Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, but ACV computation itself is governed by policy language and case law (parties in reported disputes have agreed ACV = replacement cost less depreciation, without a controlling statutory formula).

Delaware has adopted the NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Model Act framework governing claims-handling conduct generally. No Delaware statute specifically defines how actual cash value or depreciation is to be computed for property-insurance claims.

Source: https://www.eagle-law.com/wp-content/uploads/Paper-S.Backus-LWoodrow-FairClaims-Handling.pdf

RESEARCHED. Confirmed this state has adopted the general NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Model Act framework (governing claims-handling conduct, timelines, and good faith), but no specific statute defines the ACV computation formula (i.e., whether/how depreciation, labor, or overhead are calculated) -- that question is left to policy language and case law.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Delaware statute or regulation specifically governing the timing of a recoverable-depreciation holdback, or the depreciation of labor specifically, was found.

No Delaware statute, regulation, or bulletin addressing recoverable-depreciation holdback timing or the labor-depreciation question was located; Delaware was not listed among states with confirmed rules on either question in the sources reviewed. This appears to be governed by individual policy terms.

Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/rcv-acv-and-the-depreciation-of-labor/

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No statute, regulation, or case addressing either question was found for Delaware specifically in this pass -- same as Wisconsin earlier this session.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable but strictly construed, with an exception for the owner's own negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct

Federal courts applying Delaware law to public housing-authority construction disputes have held a no-damages-for-delay clause enforceable but construed strictly against the party invoking it, and won't enforce it where the delay results from the owner's own negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct.

Citation: F.D. Rich Co. v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 392 F.2d 841 (3d Cir. 1968); Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 165 F. Supp. 275 (D. Del. 1958)

Source: https://50-state.watttieder.com/states/delaware/

RESEARCHED via Watt Tieder LLP 50-state survey. F.D. Rich Co. v. Wilmington Housing Authority, 392 F.2d 841 (3d Cir. 1968) (applying Delaware law) confirmed real -- no-damages-for-delay clauses enforceable but strictly construed against the party seeking their benefit.

Construction contract filing deadline

3 years generally; written contracts of $100,000+ may extend up to 20 years if the contract itself says so

Delaware's general limitations period for an action based on a promise (including an ordinary contract claim) is 3 years from accrual. A newer statute lets the parties to a written contract, agreement, or undertaking worth at least $100,000 specify their own longer limitations period directly in that writing, up to 20 years from accrual, so the effective deadline can differ significantly depending on what the contract itself says.

Citation: 10 Del. C. § 8106

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/delaware/title-10/chapter-81/section-8106/

Check the specific contract's own text for an extended-limitations provision before assuming the default 3-year period applies; on a large commercial project the parties may have already contracted around it.

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Delaware's new-employer rate for 2026 is 1.8% (not 1.0% as previously stated), on a wage base of $14,500 -- part of a legislated 3-year wage-base phase-in ($12,500 in 2025, $14,500 in 2026, $16,500 in 2027). Experienced employers range from roughly 0.6% to 6.5%, plus a separate 0.2% Operations and Technology Assessment on all wages. A distinct construction employer rate category exists historically; current 2026 construction figures were not confirmed this pass.

Confirmed directly against labor.delaware.gov for the wage base. The new-employer rate correction (1.0% to 1.8%) comes from a single dated (July 2026) secondary source; a direct DOL rate notice was not independently pulled to triple-confirm the exact figure, so this should be treated as a likely correction rather than absolutely certain.

Citation: Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance.

Source: https://labor.delaware.gov/divisions/unemployment-insurance/employer-services/

Last checked: 2026-08-26

CORRECTED WITH MODERATE CONFIDENCE: the prior entry stated a 1.0% new-employer rate; a July 2026-dated source states 1.8%. Delaware has been actively phasing in new rate and wage-base legislation, making a genuine year-over-year change plausible, but this specific figure should be reconfirmed against a direct DOL rate table before being treated as certain.

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply

Delaware is an NCCI state. Private carriers use NCCI advisory loss costs and standard classification codes, filed with and regulated by the Delaware Department of Insurance. There is no exclusive state fund.

Citation: NCCI, Delaware state rate/rule filings; Delaware Department of Insurance

Source: https://www.icrb.net/references/independent-bureaus-ncci-and-wcio/

Prevailing wage law

State prevailing-wage law, 29 Del. C. Section 6960

Delaware has its own prevailing wage statute under 29 Del. C. Section 6960, administered by the Department of Labor's Division of Industrial Affairs. It applies to state-funded public works contracts exceeding $500,000 for new construction (including painting and decorating) and $45,000 for alteration, repair, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition or reconstruction work. Wage rates are set by county and craft based on collective bargaining agreement rates, and covered contractors must submit weekly certified payrolls.

Citation: 29 Del. C. Section 6960; Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Industrial Affairs

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/delaware/title-29/chapter-69/subchapter-iv/section-6960/

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Delaware 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

Delaware requires OSHA-type regulations to be adopted by the state legislature before they can serve as a basis for negligence per se; absent that, OSHA standards remain admissible as evidence contributing to the reasonableness inquiry.

The Delaware Supreme Court held that a trial court's jury instruction stating OSHA violations constituted negligence per se was reversible error, because administrative regulations must be promulgated pursuant to state legislative directive to serve as the basis for negligence per se, and Delaware's legislature had not formally adopted federal OSHA standards. OSHA standards may still legitimately contribute to the 'total mix of what is reasonable conduct' for the jury's consideration.

Citation: Toll Brothers v. Considine, 706 A.2d 493, 494, 498 (Del. 1998).

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. This corrects/completes the earlier placeholder entry, which had cited the same case but without independent confirmation.

Third-party contribution against the employer

Statutory-employer protection is flagged for review, but the source doesn't detail how Delaware's test works.

Third-party claims may otherwise target owners, contractors, manufacturers, and motorists based on independent duty, notice, control, negligent undertaking, or defect.

Citation: 19 Del. C. §§2301 et seq.; Patton v. Simone, 1992 WL 398478 (Del. Super. Ct.).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/superior-court/1992/626-a-2d-844-5.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. Confirmed real (citation matches exactly). The case concerns negligence duty analysis for a third-party elevator-inspection company under Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 324A -- related third-party negligence-duty doctrine, but not squarely a statutory-employer case. Flagged as a partial topical match rather than a clean fit.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Narrow true-intent exception: a tort action against the employer requires facts showing deliberate intent to bring about the injury -- confirmed alive as recently as 2025.

19 Del. C. Section2304 makes workers' comp exclusive. Rafferty v. Hartman Walsh Painting Co. held a tort action against the employer requires facts showing deliberate intent to cause the injury, not mere negligence or recklessness. A 2025 Delaware Superior Court decision (an oil-refinery equipment-explosion case) confirmed this exception remains live where plaintiffs allege the employer knew equipment was defective, repeatedly bypassed safety thresholds, and intentionally ordered the employee into danger while concealing the risk.

Citation: 19 Del. C. Section2304; Rafferty v. Hartman Walsh Painting Co., 760 A.2d 157 (Del. 2000).

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

CORRECTED and RESEARCHED: the prior citation, 'Simendinger v. G.E. Co., 604 A.2d 1179 (Del. Super. Ct. 1992),' could not be confirmed. Note some older secondary surveys list Delaware among states without an intentional-tort exception, but the more recent and specific sourcing here (including a 2025 case application) confirms the exception is real and active.

Distinctive state doctrine

Specific two-part implied-indemnification test tied to working on the third party's premises; explicitly rejected Rhode Island's broader 'special relationship' test; construction-licensing verification duty for out-of-state hires

Delaware courts apply a specific two-part test for implied contractual indemnification (following Precision Air and Diamond State Telephone v. University of Delaware): the contract between employer and third party must require the employer to (1) perform work in a workmanlike manner, and (2) expressly or impliedly indemnify the third party for claims arising from the employer's own negligence; and this implied-indemnity route exists only where the employer performs services for the third party under a contract on the third party's own premises. Delaware courts have explicitly declined to adopt the broader 'special relationship' test used in Rhode Island (Roy v. Star Chopper) as an alternative route to indemnification. Separately, Delaware has a distinctive construction-specific compliance duty: every Delaware construction or contracting business that employs an out-of-state business (for work that would require Delaware contractor licensing) must verify that out-of-state business's licensing status in any business transaction. Delaware is also listed among the small group of states with no intentional-act exception to exclusivity at all.

Citation: 19 Del. C. Section2304 (exclusive remedy); Section2371(f) (out-of-state construction/contracting business licensing-verification duty).

Source: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title19/c023/sc04/index.html

CORRECTED subsection: the out-of-state licensing-verification duty is actually Section2371(f) (compulsory insurance subchapter), not Section2304(f) -- Section2304 itself is the general exclusive-remedy provision and has no subsection (f). Confirmed real, distinctly construction-specific: Delaware construction/contracting businesses must verify that out-of-state contractors they hire are properly licensed under Title 30, Chapter 25.