Construction Claim Rules in Hawaii

Statutory interest rate

10% / year, fixed (both pre-judgment on written instruments and post-judgment)

The default legal rate on money due on a written instrument (bond, note, or other writing) that doesn't specify its own rate is a fixed 10% per year, the provision most likely to govern a construction contract absent its own interest clause. Postjudgment interest on any civil judgment is separately capped at 10% per year, 'and no more.'

Compounding: Simple; no compounding mechanism in the statutory text.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-2 (contract default); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-3 (postjudgment)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-26/chapter-478/section-478-2/

Hawaii is a sovereign-immunity state; prejudgment interest against the State itself is barred except where expressly authorized, relevant for public-works construction claims.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

Judge's discretion, but may run as early as the date of breach

Hawaii's interest statute gives the judge discretion to set the commencement date for awarding interest to fit the circumstances of the case, but specifies that the earliest permissible commencement date in a breach-of-contract case is the date the breach first occurred.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 636-16

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-34/chapter-636/section-636-16/

The judge sets the actual date within their discretion; the statute only fixes how early that date can be, it doesn't guarantee the breach date will be used.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Judge's discretion, but may run as early as the date of injury (loss)

The same statute allows the earliest commencement date in a tort case, including property damage, to be the date the injury first occurred. As with contract claims, this is the earliest permissible date, not a guaranteed default; the judge retains discretion to pick a later date based on the case's circumstances.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 636-16

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-34/chapter-636/section-636-16/

Actual Cash Value rule

Not established: no controlling insurance-context case or statute found (confirmed by a second, more rigorous research pass)

No Hawaii appellate case was located adopting either the broad evidence rule or a strict replacement-cost-minus-depreciation formula for a property/fire insurance claim. Hawaii's standard fire insurance policy statute requires conformity to the 1943 New York standard form, which, unlike later versions used by many other states, does not itself contain 'proper deduction for depreciation' language, which is part of why commentators describe Hawaii's ACV rule as unresolved. A second research pass confirmed even a federal court applying Hawaii law (Privratsky v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2023 WL 2574481 (D. Haw. 2023)) was unable to cite any Hawaii state-court insurance-ACV case and had to reason by analogy; independent confirmation this is a genuine gap in Hawaii law, not just under-researched.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10-210(a)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-24/chapter-431/section-431-10-210/

One near-miss found on the second pass, worth knowing but not controlling: United Truck Rental Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Kleenco Corp., 84 Hawai'i 86, 929 P.2d 99, 106 n.12 (Haw. Ct. App. 1996), states 'actual cash value is considered synonymous with fair market value'; but this is a bailment/stolen-rental-vehicle damages case, not an insurance-policy case, so it's persuasive dicta at most, not a controlling insurance-ACV holding. A specialized insurance-defense industry survey independently reaches the same 'undecided' conclusion for Hawaii's insurance-specific rule.

ACV statute or regulation

No statute or regulation found that defines ACV or restricts labor depreciation, the issue remains an open common-law question in Hawaii.

No Hawaii Revised Statutes provision or insurance-division rule was found that defines how ACV must be calculated or that restricts labor depreciation. Hawaii Revised Statutes 431:10-210 requires fire policies to provide coverage at least as broad as the 1943 New York standard form, and commentators note that form's depreciation language was not carried forward, but this is a coverage-form requirement, not a statutory ACV formula, and Hawaii courts have not definitively resolved whether labor may be depreciated.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. 431:10-210 (reviewed, not an ACV-computation statute)

Source: https://www.insurancelawhawaii.com/2026/07/insureds-failure-to-determine-depreciation-when-presenting-claim-for-replacement-cost-value.html

No Hawaii Insurance Division bulletin or administrative rule defining ACV or restricting labor depreciation was located. This should be treated as an open question in Hawaii rather than a confirmed absence, and a search of the Hawaii Administrative Rules insurance division chapters directly (as opposed to secondary commentary) would be worth doing before publishing with full confidence. CONFIRMED via a recent (2026) Hawaii insurance-law case discussion: ACV as replacement cost less depreciation is established by AGREEMENT between the parties/policy language in reported disputes, not by a controlling Hawaii statute defining the computation formula.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

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

No Hawaii-specific statute, regulation, or case addressing recoverable-depreciation holdback timing or the labor-depreciation question was located. A Hawaii-based insurance law blog discusses this topic but the cases it covers (e.g., Cranfield v. State Farm) arise under other states' law (Ohio), not Hawaii's -- no Hawaii-specific authority was found in this pass. This appears to be governed by individual policy terms.

Source: https://www.insurancelawhawaii.com/insurance_law_hawaii/2019/01/labor-costs-not-excluded-from-depreciation-when-determining-actual-cash-value.html

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

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

No Hawaii state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses.

A comprehensive 50-state matrix confirms no Hawaii authority addresses this question.

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. Independently confirms the genuine absence of Hawaii authority on this question.

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for a contract action, written or oral

Hawaii's general limitations period covers an action for the recovery of any debt founded upon a contract, obligation, or liability at 6 years from accrual; the statute doesn't distinguish between a written and an oral contract, so an ordinary construction-contract claim gets the same 6-year period either way.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-36/chapter-657/section-657-1/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Hawaii's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 2.40% of the first $64,500 in wages per employee for 2026.

New employers pay a flat 2.40% rate under Hawaii's 2026 contribution rate schedule (Schedule C). Established employers are experience-rated within a range of 2.40% to 5.60%. The taxable wage base rose to $64,500 per employee for 2026, one of the highest wage bases in the country, reflecting Hawaii's high average wages.

Citation: Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Unemployment Insurance Division

Source: https://labor.hawaii.gov/ui/tax-rate-schedule-and-weekly-benefit-amount/

Last checked: 2026-08-26

Confirm the wage base and schedule letter each year directly on this page, since Hawaii's wage base is indexed and changes annually. Confirmed directly against the official labor.hawaii.gov rate schedule table, which gives 2026 figures alongside the prior 5 years for easy cross-checking.

Workers' compensation rating

Hawaii uses NCCI advisory rates rather than its own rating bureau.

Hawaii's workers' compensation loss costs and class codes are developed by NCCI and filed with the Hawaii Insurance Division for approval, following the standard advisory-rate model. Carriers apply their own multipliers on top of the approved NCCI loss costs. Hawaii is not a monopolistic state and does not operate its own independent rating bureau.

Citation: NCCI Hawaii State Advisory Forum, Hawaii Insurance Division

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Documents/II_StateAdvisoryForumState_HI_2025.pdf

Prevailing wage law

Hawaii requires prevailing wages on state and county construction contracts over $2,000.

Chapter 104 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes requires laborers and mechanics on state and county construction projects exceeding $2,000 to be paid locally prevailing wages, and requires contractors to file certified payrolls with the contracting agency. This is administered by the Wage Standards Division of the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, and layers on top of federal Davis-Bacon coverage when federal funds are also involved.

Citation: Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 104, Wage Standards Division

Source: https://labor.hawaii.gov/wsd/prevailing-wages-on-public-works/

OSHA plan

Full state plan, private + public sector

Hawaii operates a full OSHA-approved state plan (Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health, HIOSH) covering both private and public-sector employers.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 396

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Confirmed evidence, not negligence per se (direct Hawaii case citation)

The Hawaii Supreme Court held OSHA violations constitute evidence, not conclusive proof, of negligence: placing Hawaii in the majority 'some evidence' camp alongside most other states in this dataset.

Citation: Rapoza v. Willocks Construction Corp., No. 22052, 2004 WL 27460, at *15 n.38 (Haw. Jan. 2, 2004)

Source: http://oaoa.hawaii.gov/jud/22052mop.htm

Third-party contribution against the employer

Hawaii law bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking contribution against the plaintiff-employee's employer -- confirmed directly via the annotated code.

Haw. Rev. Stat. Section386-5 makes workers-comp exclusive against the employer. The annotated code confirms that Hawaii law bars an action for contribution by a third-party tortfeasor against the employer -- to the point that it precludes an employee of a government contractor from recovering the full amount of damages from the United States where a portion of those damages was attributable to the employer's own negligence (citing a 1979 federal decision applying Hawaii law).

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. Section386-5.

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-21/chapter-386/section-386-5/

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Bidar v. Midway Contracting Co., 109 Haw. 432 (2006)) could not be located or confirmed in any search. Replaced with a directly on-point confirmation drawn from Hawaii's own annotated code commentary, which explicitly states the third-party-contribution bar as settled Hawaii law.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General employer immunity under ch. 386: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.

Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 386 generally provides employer immunity. The manual doesn't identify a specific exception mechanism; confirm directly.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 386; Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Haw. 1 (1996).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/1996/17877-2.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

CORRECTED: the exclusivity provision is Haw. Rev. Stat. Section386-5, not Section386-1 (which is only the definitions section). Hawaii courts have explicitly declined to adopt the dual-capacity doctrine and upheld the exclusivity provision as constitutional.

Haw. Rev. Stat. Section386-5 provides that workers-compensation remedies exclude all other liabilities of an employer to an employee for personal injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. Hawaii courts have explicitly declined to adopt the dual-capacity doctrine, finding the exclusivity provision constitutional. More than one employing entity can claim the liability protection of the exclusivity provision, and a statutory employer that secures coverage by paying a fee to a lending employer is entitled to tort immunity.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. Section386-5.

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-21/chapter-386/section-386-5/

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Section386-1) is only the general definitions section, not the exclusivity provision itself. The actual exclusivity provision, including Hawaii's explicit rejection of the dual-capacity doctrine, is at Section386-5.