Construction Claim Rules in District of Columbia

Statutory interest rate

6% / year, fixed (general default); other rates apply in narrower contexts

The District's general default legal rate, used when a contract doesn't specify its own rate, is a fixed 6% per year. Judgments against the District of Columbia government itself are capped at 4% per year; a separate formula (70% of the IRS underpayment rate under 26 U.S.C. § 6621) applies to most other judgments once entered, subject to the court's discretion to lower it for good cause.

Compounding: Not specified in the statute text reviewed; treat as simple interest absent further confirmation.

Citation: D.C. Code § 28-3302

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/district-of-columbia/title-28/chapter-33/section-28-3302/

This is a federal-district statute, not a state statute: D.C. Code § 28-3302 is enacted by the D.C. Council under home-rule authority, not by a state legislature. Three different rates apply depending on context (private contract default, judgments against the District government and general post-judgment interest); don't use one figure for all three.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

As of right on liquidated debts: from the date the debt was due and payable

D.C. Code § 15-108 governs liquidated debts, meaning an easily ascertainable sum certain. Interest is owed as of right from the time the debt was due and payable, at the contract rate where one applies, until paid. The D.C. Court of Appeals has held that a good faith dispute over the debt does not change its liquidated character or move that accrual date.

Citation: D.C. Code § 15-108; District of Columbia v. Pierce Assocs., 527 A.2d 306 (D.C. 1987)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1987/86-375-4.html

This is federal-district case law (D.C. Court of Appeals, the District's local appellate court under congressional home-rule authority), not a state supreme court decision. Also confirm the interest rate itself against D.C. Code § 28-3302(a), since Pierce Associates held that rate caps apply regardless of which accrual section governs.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Discretionary: no fixed accrual date; courts may award interest from an earlier date only if needed to fully compensate

D.C. Code § 15-109 covers unliquidated damages, which includes most property-damage/tort claims. Under this section, a judgment bears interest from the date of judgment by default, but a court may include prejudgment interest running from an earlier date (such as the date of loss) as an element of damages, where necessary to fully compensate the plaintiff. There is no fixed statutory accrual date the way there is for a liquidated debt.

Citation: D.C. Code § 15-109; District of Columbia v. Pierce Assocs., 527 A.2d 306 (D.C. 1987)

Source: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/15-109

This is federal-district statute and case law, not state law; D.C. Code Title 15 is enacted by the D.C. Council under congressional home-rule authority. Because this accrual date is discretionary rather than fixed, confirm how a specific judge is likely to treat the claim before assuming date-of-loss interest will be awarded.

Actual Cash Value rule

Undecided: DC has not adopted the Broad Evidence Rule or a fixed ACV formula.

The District has not adopted the broad evidence rule or any fixed ACV formula, unlike neighbouring Maryland and Virginia, which have both adopted it. A published survey on total loss valuation groups the District with West Virginia as undecided.

Source: https://www.carrmaloney.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2-8-Total-Loss-Damage.pdf

ACV statute or regulation

The DC Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking has issued a bulletin, dated August 11, 2025, taking the position that depreciating labor in an ACV calculation is an unfair claims settlement practice under existing DC insurance law, though this is subregulatory guidance rather than a standalone statute.

DISB Bulletin 25-IB-001-08/12, dated August 11, 2025, states that labor, unlike physical materials, does not lose value or break down over time and that depreciating labor costs when settling an ACV claim constitutes an unfair claims settlement practice. The bulletin cites D.C. Code Section 31-2231.17(b)(6), the District's existing unfair claims settlement practices statute, as its statutory basis and states DISB will not approve policy forms that allow depreciation of labor or other nontangible items such as taxes, fees, overhead and profit. Because a bulletin is agency interpretive guidance applying an existing general unfair-claims-practices statute rather than a new statute or codified regulation specific to ACV methodology, this should be treated as the Department's current enforcement position rather than as a freestanding statutory rule.

Citation: D.C. Code Section 31-2231.17(b)(6); DISB Bulletin 25-IB-001-08/12 (Aug. 11, 2025)

Source: https://disb.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/disb/page_content/attachments/BULLETIN25-IB-001-0812.pdf

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No D.C. statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, D.C. regulators consider depreciating labor and other nontangible costs an unfair claims settlement practice.

No District statute governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking issued a bulletin stating that depreciating labor and other nontangible items, including taxes, fees, overhead and profit, in the definition of ACV is an unfair claims settlement practice. 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.

Citation: D.C. Dept. of Insurance, Securities and Banking Bulletin 25-IB-001-08/12.

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

The bulletin is agency guidance interpreting the unfair practices statute rather than a statute or a court holding.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable but with recognized exceptions, including active interference

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals holds no-damages-for-delay clauses generally enforceable, except where the delay was not contemplated by the parties, amounts to abandonment of the contract, was caused by the other party's bad faith or amounts to active interference. In the leading case a contractor's poor work sequencing and failure to supervise a subcontractor was active interference, which defeated the clause.

Citation: Blake Constr. Co. v. C.J. Coakley Co., 431 A.2d 569, 578-79 (D.C. 1981)

Source: https://rc.com/practices/Litigation/ConstructionLitigation/construction-litigation.cfm

The exceptions above come from a summary rather than the opinion. Confirm the language before relying on it in a filing.

Construction contract filing deadline

3 years for a simple contract claim, express or implied

The District's general limitations statute sets a 3-year period for an action on a simple contract, whether express or implied, running from when the right to maintain the action first accrues. 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: D.C. Code § 12-301(a)(7)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/district-of-columbia/2021/title-12/chapter-3/section-12-301/

This is a federal-district statute enacted under congressional home-rule authority, not a state statute. Confirm the current subsection lettering directly with the D.C. Code before relying on it, since this section has been renumbered before.

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New-employer rate 2.7%, wage base $9,000, unchanged for 2026

The District of Columbia's unemployment tax rates are unchanged for 2026: the new-employer rate remains 2.7%, applied to the first $9,000 in wages per employee. Experience-rated positive-rated employers range from 1.9% to 4.4%, while negative-rated employers range from 6.2% to 7.4%; employers are also subject to a 0.2% administrative assessment on top of these rates.

Citation: DC Department of Employment Services (DOES), Unemployment Insurance Tax (2026)

Source: https://does.dc.gov/service/employer-tax-information-unemployment-insurance

Last checked: 2026-08-26

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply

The District of Columbia is an NCCI jurisdiction. Private insurers writing workers' compensation coverage in DC use NCCI's advisory loss costs and standard classification codes, filed with and regulated by the DC Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking. There is no exclusive fund; employers buy coverage on the private market.

Citation: NCCI State Advisory Forum, District of Columbia

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/II_StateAdvisoryForumState_DC.aspx?state=District+of+Columbia

Prevailing wage law

Living Wage Act layered on federal Davis-Bacon coverage

The District of Columbia does not operate a separate construction-specific 'little Davis-Bacon' wage-determination system the way a state legislature would; because DC public buildings and public works already fall within the federal Davis-Bacon Act's own reach (applicable to contracts over $2,000 for construction of public buildings and public works), federal Davis-Bacon rates effectively apply on DC government construction contracts. Separately, DC's own Living Wage Act of 2006, D.C. Code Sections 2-220.01 through 2-220.11, requires a minimum living wage (higher than DC's minimum wage) on District government contracts and subsidies generally exceeding $100,000, though it functions more like a wage floor than a full occupation-by-occupation prevailing wage schedule.

Citation: D.C. Code Sections 2-220.01 to 2-220.11 (Living Wage Act of 2006); federal Davis-Bacon Act as applied to DC contracts

Source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages

The District's wage floor for construction is a hybrid: federal Davis-Bacon coverage plus the Living Wage Act, rather than a single state-style prevailing wage statute. Have someone familiar with District procurement confirm the position for a specific contract.

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Pure contributory negligence, any fault bars recovery entirely

Any fault attributable to the injured worker, even 1%, defeats the claim. This is the harshest of the four systems and only a handful of jurisdictions still apply it. A modified 51% bar applies to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorized users under the Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2016.

Citation: Wingfield v. People's Drug Store, 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977); D.C. Code § 50-2204.52 (Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act, vulnerable users)

Source: https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury-law/what-is-contributory-negligence.html

Verified against: the rule as stated in the cited decision, with the vulnerable-user carve-out confirmed in current secondary surveys

Non-economic damages cap

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.

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA, no state plan (DC is a federal district, not a state and is not eligible for an OSHA State Plan).

The District of Columbia is a federal district, not a state, so it cannot establish its own OSHA-approved State Plan the way a state legislature could. Both public and private employers in DC fall under direct 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 eligibility limited to states); OSHA State Plans directory

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

OSHA violations are not negligence per se in the District, but they are admissible as evidence of the standard of care, including for a plaintiff OSHA does not protect

Thoma v. Kettler Bros. arose from a construction site accident in which a visitor touring a house under construction was injured. The court held that OSHA regulations of nationwide scope which did not give rise to negligence per se were nevertheless admissible as evidence of the standard of care and that a plaintiff who is not an intended beneficiary of the regulation, meaning someone who is not an employee, may still use it that way.

Citation: Thoma v. Kettler Bros., Inc., 632 A.2d 725 (D.C. 1993)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1993/92-cv-225-5.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

No statutory-employer shield described; third-party claims use ordinary negligence, premises liability, retained control, negligent undertaking, products and vehicle law.

The District has no New York style scaffold law and generally applies contributory negligence. D.C. Code § 12-309 imposes special notice requirements for a claim against the District itself. Levy v. Schnabel Foundation is the case given here, an excavation and shoring subcontractor dispute over damage to adjacent property during a District building project.

Citation: D.C. Code § 32-1501 et seq.; Levy v. Schnabel Foundation Co., 584 A.2d 1251 (D.C. 1991).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1991/89-1002-4.html

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Narrow intentional-harm exception (specific intent to harm required, not mere recklessness), plus an uninsured-employer exception.

D.C. Code § 32-1503 bars ordinary negligence claims against the employer. Courts recognize an exception where the employer acted with specific intent to harm the employee , ordinary negligence or even reckless disregard for safety does not qualify. Separately, an employer that fails to carry the legally required workers' comp insurance loses exclusivity protection. 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: D.C. Code § 32-1503.

Source: https://www.simeonemiller.com/blog/can-i-sue-my-employer-for-a-workplace-injury/

Distinctive state doctrine

First insured contractor rule: liability runs to the first insured contractor in the chain, not to the first general contractor

D.C. Code § 32-1503(c) makes an employer that subcontracts liable for compensation to the subcontractor's employees unless the subcontractor secures payment. An employee whose direct employer is an uninsured subcontractor can therefore claim against the general contractor and where there is a chain of contractors the first insured contractor in that chain carries the liability. That is a different test from the regular business or regular trade tests most states use. Where a District employer fails to carry required coverage the injured employee may elect to sue in tort instead and the employer loses the defences of fellow servant negligence, assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The District has no public guaranty fund to fall back on if an uninsured employer cannot pay a judgment. Intentional acts and sexual harassment are both exceptions to exclusivity.

Citation: D.C. Code § 32-1503(c); 7 DCMR § 201.4

Source: https://www.washlaw.org/workers-rights-manual/workers-compensation/