Construction Claim Rules in Idaho

Statutory interest rate

12% / year fixed (contract default, pre-judgment); floating 5% + T-bill-based base rate (post-judgment)

Absent a contract clause specifying otherwise, the default legal rate on money due by express contract is a fixed 12% per year. Once judgment is entered, a different floating rate applies instead: 5% plus a base rate the Idaho State Treasurer sets every July 1 from the weekly average one-year Treasury yield, rounded up to the nearest 1/8%, applicable to judgments entered over the following 12 months.

Compounding: Simple

Citation: Idaho Code § 28-22-104

Source: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title28/t28ch22/sect28-22-104/

Last checked: 2026-08-25

The floating/postjudgment mechanism itself was reconfirmed today (still genuinely formula-based, not a fixed rate), but the exact statutory base-rate index used isn't specific enough in this entry to compute today's resulting number with confidence; needs the state's own precise index definition to resolve a figure.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when the sum became due, if the contract's own terms make the amount capable of mathematical computation

The Idaho Supreme Court holds prejudgment interest is available as a matter of law when the amount claimed, even if not strictly liquidated, is capable of mathematical computation; a party can't defeat this right merely by disputing and litigating the claim. Where the contract itself establishes how damages are calculated, interest runs from the date the sum became due under that formula.

Citation: Dillon v. Montgomery, 138 Idaho 614, 67 P.3d 93 (2003)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/id-supreme-court/1261368.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same mathematical-computation test as contract claims; no separate statute found for tort/property damage

This pass didn't locate a separate Idaho statute or case specifically addressing property-damage prejudgment interest; Dillon v. Montgomery's 'capable of mathematical computation' test reads as a general rule rather than one limited to contract disputes, so a property-damage claim with an ascertainable repair cost likely qualifies on the same reasoning, running from when that cost became fixed (essentially the date of loss). Treat this as reasoned extension rather than a confirmed, on-point property-damage holding.

Citation: Dillon v. Montgomery, 138 Idaho 614, 67 P.3d 93 (2003)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/id-supreme-court/1261368.html

This pass found Dillon in a contract/escrow context; a case squarely applying its test to construction property damage wasn't independently located. Confirm with a case-law search or counsel before relying on this for a property-damage claim.

Actual Cash Value rule

Policy-language-driven: depreciation applies when the policy defines ACV that way (confirmed directly from the primary opinion)

A follow-up verification pass located and read the actual Manduca Datsun opinion and its holding is more specific than a generalized 'broad evidence rule': the policy in that case defined ACV as replacement cost with no allowance for code-upgrade costs and the Idaho Court of Appeals held depreciation must be deducted under that definition, reasoning that the insured had chosen basic ACV coverage rather than paying extra for a 'replacement cost, no depreciation' endorsement. The court upheld a 20% depreciation factor supported by expert testimony on the building's remaining useful life. This reads as Idaho courts enforcing the specific ACV definition in the policy at hand, not announcing one fixed statewide formula; closer to the broad-evidence approach in spirit (multiple factors, expert testimony, case-by-case) but not a clean 'broad evidence rule' label the way other states' cases use it.

Citation: Manduca Datsun, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 106 Idaho 163, 676 P.2d 1274 (Ct. App. 1984)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/idaho/court-of-appeals/1984/106-idaho-163.html

The other case previously cited here, 'Boise Ass'n of Credit Men v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 256 P. 523 (Idaho 1927),' could not be verified in a follow-up pass and was removed; no case under that name or citation could be found in any database checked; the closest match found in the same year/reporter was a differently-named case (Intermountain Ass'n of Credit Men v. Milwaukee Mechanic's Ins. Co., 44 Idaho 491, 258 P. 362 (1927)), which is not confirmed to be the same case and is not cited here. Manduca Datsun's holding and citation are now independently confirmed from the primary opinion text (linked above), replacing the earlier 'moderate confidence, unverified' framing.

ACV statute or regulation

No Idaho statute defines the ACV computation formula. Idaho uses the Broad Evidence Rule via case law.

Multiple independent industry surveys confirm Idaho has no ACV-computation statute; valuation for property-insurance claims is governed by the Broad Evidence Rule at common law.

Source: https://www.theartofadjusting.com/acv-determination

RESEARCHED and confirmed via multiple independent industry surveys (Woods Aitken/Carr Maloney/Art of Adjusting) that this state has no specific statute defining the ACV computation formula -- valuation is governed by case law (the Broad Evidence Rule) rather than a fixed statutory formula.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Idaho statute sets a holdback release deadline specifically, but a real consumer-protection statute requires insurers to pay valid claims within 30 days of a submitted proof of loss.

Idaho Code Section41-1839 requires insurers to pay valid claims within 30 days of a submitted proof of loss -- a general prompt-payment requirement that would apply once a recoverable-depreciation claim is properly submitted with proof of completed repairs, though it does not itself set a deadline for when repairs must be completed or the depreciation claim submitted. No provision specifically addressing that latter question was found; Idaho's consumer guidance confirms this is 'usually' a matter of individual policy terms.

Citation: Idaho Code Section41-1839.

Source: https://www.idahoroofingcontractors.com/does-homeowners-insurance-cover-roof-replacement-in-idaho/

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No holdback-timing statute found for the repair/claim-submission deadline specifically, but Idaho does have a real, confirmed 30-day prompt-payment statute that would apply once a proper claim is submitted.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, with an exception for uncontemplated delay or active/direct interference by the owner

The Idaho Supreme Court has held that where a delay results from causes not within the contemplation of the parties, or where the delay is caused by active or direct interference by the contractee (the party benefiting from the no-damages clause), the limited or 'no damage' provisions of the contract need not be adhered to.

Citation: Grant Constr. Co. v. Burns, 92 Idaho 408, 443 P.2d 1005, 1012 (1968)

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1447185/grant-construction-co-v-burns/

A free, directly-linkable full-text copy of this 1968 Idaho Supreme Court opinion wasn't located this pass; the quoted language is drawn from a secondary legal-survey summary. Confirm the exact holding against the primary opinion before relying on it in a filing.

Construction contract filing deadline

5 years for an action on a written contract

Idaho's limitations period for an action upon any contract, obligation, or liability founded upon an instrument in writing is 5 years from accrual, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim.

Citation: Idaho Code § 5-216

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/title-5/chapter-2/section-5-216/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Idaho's standard new-employer unemployment tax rate is 1.000% for 2026. Experienced employers fall into two disjoint bands: 0.208% to 0.694% for positive-rated employers, or 1.25% to 5.4% for negative-rated employers. 2026 taxable wage base is $58,300, up from $55,300 in 2025.

New employers begin at a standard rate class carrying roughly a 1.000% rate for at least their first six calendar quarters. Established employers are then rated across a wide band, from about 0.208% for the best positive-reserve-ratio employers up to 5.400% for the worst deficit-reserve-ratio employers. The taxable wage base is $58,300 per employee for 2026.

Citation: Idaho Department of Labor, 2026 Tax Rate and Class Array

Source: https://gov.idaho.gov/pressrelease/idaho-businesses-see-another-11-million-in-tax-savings/

Last checked: 2026-08-26

CONFIRMED AND EXPANDED: the 1.0% rate was already accurate, confirmed directly against the Idaho Governor's own press release and the official Idaho Department of Labor publication (via Bloomberg Tax). Added the wage base (missing before) and the disjoint experience-rated bands, another instance of the same split-range structure found in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Kentucky this project.

Workers' compensation rating

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

Idaho follows the standard NCCI advisory-rate model. NCCI files proposed loss costs with the Idaho Department of Insurance each year, and once approved, insurers can either adopt the NCCI figures unmodified or file their own deviation. Claims administration and disputes run through the Idaho Industrial Commission, which is separate from rate-setting.

Citation: Idaho Department of Insurance, NCCI rate filings

Source: https://doi.idaho.gov/pressrelease/idahos-workers-compensation-rates-to-drop-again-in-2026/

Prevailing wage law

Idaho has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed its version in 1985.

Idaho's Little Davis-Bacon Act was repealed by the state legislature in 1985. Public construction contracts let by Idaho state or local agencies are not subject to a state-mandated prevailing wage, only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only when federal funds are involved.

Citation: Repealed; U.S. Department of Labor state prevailing wage summary

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

OSHA plan

Full state plan, private + public sector

Idaho operates a full OSHA-approved state plan (Idaho Division of Occupational Safety and Health, IOSHA) covering both private and public-sector employers.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; Idaho Code § 72-716 et seq.

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Confirmed as one of the states leaning toward pure negligence per se when the plaintiff is the defendant's own employee: a direct Idaho Supreme Court holding

The Idaho Supreme Court held that applying negligence per se to OSHA violations, when the plaintiff is the defendant's employee, reflects 'the decided majority and modern trend'; placing Idaho among the states willing to treat an OSHA violation as establishing breach of duty as a matter of law within a genuine employer-employee relationship, though this specific case involved an employee plaintiff rather than a general third-party defendant scenario.

Citation: Sanchez v. Galey, 733 P.2d 1234, 1242 (Idaho 1986)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/id-supreme-court/1379198.html

The specific application to a genuine third-party (non-employer) defendant in the construction context wasn't independently confirmed this pass.

Third-party contribution against the employer

A genuinely SIGNIFICANT 2023 Idaho Supreme Court decision reversed prior precedent: an independent contractor is now NOT immune as a statutory co-employee -- opening the door to third-party negligence suits against independent contractors that would previously have been barred.

Idaho Code Section72-223(1) generally bars a third-party suit against employers described in Section72-216 who have complied with Section72-301 (i.e., statutory employers with contractors/subcontractors that carry coverage). However, in Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC (Idaho 2023), the Idaho Supreme Court reversed its prior precedent and held that an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR is fundamentally different from a 'contractor' or 'subcontractor' as those terms are used in the Idaho Workers' Compensation Act -- meaning an independent contractor is NOT immune as a statutory co-employee and CAN be sued in tort by an injured employee of the party that hired it, even though the general exclusivity/no-contribution framework otherwise protects true statutory employers.

Citation: Idaho Code Section72-223(1), Section72-216, Section72-301; Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC (Idaho 2023).

Source: https://idahosupremecourtopinions.justia.com/category/personal-injury/page/4

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Cramer v. Slater, 146 Idaho 554 (2008)) was wrong-topic -- the real case with that party name and year (146 Idaho 868, 204 P.3d 508 (2009)) is a medical-malpractice/wrongful-death case, unrelated to workers-comp. Replaced with real, current, and genuinely significant authority: a 2023 Idaho Supreme Court decision that meaningfully reshaped who counts as immune in this exact context.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Codified narrow exception: employer immunity does not apply where the injury was proximately caused by the employer's (or its agent's) wilful or unprovoked physical aggression.

I.C. Section72-209 provides that the exemption from tort liability does not apply where injury or death is proximately caused by the wilful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer or its officers, agents, or employees. The loss of immunity applies only to the aggressor, not the employer generally, unless the employer provoked, authorized, or was a party to the aggression. Idaho is also flagged by commentators as one of a small handful of states that may NOT recognize a broader general intentional-tort exception beyond this specific aggression carve-out.

Citation: Idaho Code Section72-201, Section72-209, Section72-211, Section72-223.

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

RESEARCHED: the prior citation, 'Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 Idaho 708 (2023),' does not address this topic. Replaced with the real codified exception. Worth flagging Idaho as an outlier state with only a narrow physical-aggression carve-out, not a general intentional-tort exception.

Distinctive state doctrine

Broadly worded statutory-employer immunity, now confirmed by two real applied cases showing where the line falls

Idaho deems any party responsible or liable for workers' comp benefits to be immune from third-party liability. A 'statutory employer' is defined broadly as anyone who, by contracting or subcontracting out services, becomes liable to pay workers' comp benefits to the resulting workers: and the Idaho Supreme Court confirmed in Krinitt v. Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game, 162 Idaho 425 (2017) that an employer who makes use of a contractor's or subcontractor's employees qualifies as a 'category one' statutory employer immune from tort suits. But the line has real limits: in Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207 (2003), a property owner was held NOT to be a statutory employer for a roof-installation employee's injury, because the owner was not itself in the construction or roof-installation business, didn't employ people trained in that work, and didn't own the materials or equipment needed for it; meaning the trial court erred in granting the owner summary judgment, and the third-party suit against the owner was allowed to proceed.

Citation: Idaho Code § 72-216(1)-(2); Struhs v. Protection Technologies, Inc., 992 P.2d 164 (Idaho 1999); Krinitt v. Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game, 162 Idaho 425, 398 P.3d 158 (2017); Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207, 76 P.3d 951 (2003)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/id-supreme-court/1489048.html

Struhs confirmed real (133 Idaho 715, 992 P.2d 164 (1999)); minor citation format note -- the Idaho reporter volume (133 Idaho 715) was omitted in the prior entry but the P.2d cite was correct.