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 settled: no Hawaii statute or appellate decision adopts an ACV method for a property insurance claim

No Hawaii appellate case adopts either the broad evidence rule or replacement cost less depreciation for a property or fire insurance claim. Hawaii's standard fire policy statute requires conformity to the 1943 New York standard form, which does not carry the 'proper deduction for depreciation' language found in later forms used by many states. A federal court applying Hawaii law in Privratsky v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (D. Haw. 2023) could not cite a Hawaii state court insurance ACV case and reasoned by analogy instead.

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 is worth knowing: United Truck Rental Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Kleenco Corp., 84 Hawai'i 86, 929 P.2d 99, 106 n.12 (Haw. Ct. App. 1996), says actual cash value is considered synonymous with fair market value. That is a bailment case about a stolen rental vehicle, so it is persuasive at most, not a controlling insurance holding.

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 statute or insurance division rule defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts labor depreciation. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10-210 requires fire policies to be at least as broad as the 1943 New York standard form, which is a coverage form requirement rather than a valuation formula. Hawaii courts have not 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

In reported Hawaii disputes, ACV as replacement cost less depreciation comes from the policy language the parties agreed to, not from a Hawaii statute. Treat the question as open.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Hawaii statute or regulation governs the timing of a recoverable depreciation holdback or the depreciation of labor, so the policy terms control.

No Hawaii statute, regulation or decision addresses recoverable depreciation holdback timing or the labor depreciation question. Hawaii insurance commentary on the subject discusses cases decided under other states' law. Read the policy's replacement cost provisions. 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.

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

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

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

No Hawaii state or federal decision addresses the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses, so there is no Hawaii rule to apply. Expect the analysis to turn on general contract principles.

Source: https://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

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. 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: 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

Hawaii's wage base is indexed and changes every year, so confirm the wage base and the schedule letter each year on the department's rate page.

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/

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

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.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31(a), (c); Armstrong v. Cione, 69 Haw. 176 (1987) and Kaneko-line authority applying pure comparative principles to strict products liability

Source: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0663/HRS_0663-0031.htm

Verified against: statute text of Haw. Rev. Stat. s 663-31 at capitol.hawaii.gov

Non-economic damages cap

Non-economic damages capped at $375,000

Limits pain and suffering. Other categories of non-economic loss fall outside the limit and several classes of case are excepted.

Citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-8.7

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. A state plan must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may set stricter standards, so check the state rule before assuming the federal text applies. Two practical consequences follow. A state plan covers state and local government employees, which federal OSHA does not, so a public works injury is inside the state agency's jurisdiction. Citations are issued by the state agency and contested before the state's own review body rather than the federal commission, which changes where the file lives when you go looking for it. Reporting deadlines follow the federal rule: 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; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 396

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

OSHA violations are evidence of negligence in Hawaii, not conclusive proof

In Hawaii a violation of a safety regulation is evidence of negligence, not conclusive proof of it: the Hawaii Supreme Court's published decisions treat a violated statutory standard as evidence for the jury and an unpublished 2004 memorandum opinion applied that rule to state OSHA regulations, which puts Hawaii with the majority of states on this question. Evidence rather than negligence per se means the violation goes to the jury as one fact among several. The worker still proves duty, breach, causation and damages in the ordinary way and the defendant can argue the standard did not apply to it, that the cited condition did not cause this injury, or that the citation was contested or withdrawn. The reverse is also true: compliance with OSHA is not a defence, since the standards are a floor rather than a definition of reasonable care.

Citation: Rapoza v. Willocks Construction Corp., No. 22052, 2004 WL 27460, at *15 n.38 (Haw. Jan. 2, 2004) (mem. op., not for publication), citing Michel v. Valdastri, Ltd., 59 Haw. 53, 575 P.2d 1299 (1978) and Sherry v. Asing, 56 Haw. 135, 531 P.2d 648 (1975)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/2004/22052mop-1.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

Hawaii bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking contribution against the injured worker's employer.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-5 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. § 386-5.

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

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General employer immunity under chapter 386. Suits against a co-employee are governed by Iddings v. Mee-Lee.

Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 386 gives the employer immunity for a work injury. Iddings v. Mee-Lee is the Hawaii Supreme Court decision addressing when a co-employee can be sued despite that immunity. Confirm its current scope before relying on it. 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: 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

Distinctive state doctrine

Exclusivity sits in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-5. Hawaii courts have declined to adopt the dual capacity doctrine and have upheld the provision as constitutional.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-5 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. § 386-5.

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