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 postjudgment base rate is reset every July 1 by the State Treasurer from the weekly average one-year Treasury yield, rounded up to the nearest one eighth of a percent. Check the current figure before calculating a postjudgment number.

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

Idaho's test for prejudgment interest is whether the amount is capable of mathematical computation, from Dillon v. Montgomery. A property damage claim with an ascertainable repair cost should qualify on the same reasoning, running from the date that cost became fixed, which is usually the date of loss. Dillon arose in a contract and escrow dispute rather than a construction property damage case, so confirm the point with counsel before relying on it.

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

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

Actual Cash Value rule

Policy-language driven: depreciation applies where the policy defines ACV that way

In Manduca Datsun, the policy defined ACV as replacement cost with no allowance for code upgrade costs and the Idaho Court of Appeals held depreciation had to be deducted under that definition, reasoning that the insured had chosen basic ACV coverage rather than paying extra for a replacement cost endorsement. The court upheld a 20% depreciation factor supported by expert testimony on the building's remaining useful life. Idaho courts enforce the ACV definition in the policy at hand rather than one fixed statewide formula, which is closer to the broad evidence approach in spirit.

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

An earlier version of this entry cited Boise Ass'n of Credit Men v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 256 P. 523 (Idaho 1927). No case under that name and citation could be found, so it was removed.

ACV statute or regulation

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

Idaho has no statute defining an ACV computation formula. Valuation for property insurance claims is governed by the broad evidence rule at common law.

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

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.

No Idaho statute sets a deadline for releasing withheld recoverable depreciation or for completing repairs. Idaho Code § 41-1839 does require an insurer to pay a valid claim within 30 days of a submitted proof of loss, which applies once a recoverable depreciation claim is properly submitted with proof of completed repairs. The rest is governed by the policy terms.

Citation: Idaho Code § 41-1839.

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

“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/

The link goes to the CourtListener copy of the 1968 opinion. Check the pinpoint language 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. 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: 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

Confirm the current year's rate and wage base on the Idaho Department of Labor's tax rate page, since both change annually.

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

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Modified comparative fault, recovery barred at 50% or more fault

Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is 50% or more at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing.

Citation: Idaho Code § 6-801 (bar); § 6-803(3) (each party's responsibility compared INDIVIDUALLY to the claimant's); Odenwalt v. Zaring, 102 Idaho 1, 624 P.2d 383 (1980); Beitzel v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 121 Idaho 709, 827 P.2d 1160 (1992)

Source: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title6/t6ch8/sect6-801/

Verified against: statute text of Idaho Code ss 6-801 and 6-803(3) and the holding of Odenwalt v. Zaring as reported in the opinion text

Non-economic damages cap

Non-economic damages capped at $538,428

$538,428.04 from 1 July 2026, a 5.78% rise on the 2025–26 figure of $509,013.28. Re-indexed every 1 July against the Idaho Industrial Commission’s average annual wage, so this figure changes annually. The statute is silent on which date fixes the cap (injury, filing or verdict). The cap does not apply to wilful or reckless misconduct, or to conduct the trier of fact finds beyond reasonable doubt would be a felony.

Citation: Idaho Code § 6-1603

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. 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. It also 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; Idaho Code § 72-716 et seq.

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Idaho applies negligence per se to an OSHA violation where the plaintiff is the defendant's own employee

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

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

Whether the same rule reaches a third-party defendant that did not employ the injured worker has not been confirmed.

Third-party contribution against the employer

Since Smith v. Excel Fabrication (2023), an independent contractor is not immune as a statutory co-employee, so an injured worker can sue it in tort even after collecting compensation from the direct employer.

Idaho Code § 72-223(1) bars a third-party suit against statutory employers described in § 72-216 that have complied with § 72-301. In Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC, a sugar refinery worker fell when a handrail fabricated by an outside shop gave way. He collected workers' compensation from the refinery, then sued the fabricator. The Idaho Supreme Court held that independent contractors are separate and distinct from contractors and subcontractors as those terms are used in § 72-223(1), so an independent contractor gets no immunity as a statutory employer or statutory co-employee. Summary judgment for the fabricator was reversed. The decision overruled Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc.

Citation: Idaho Code §§ 72-209(3), 72-216, 72-223(1); Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC, 172 Idaho 725, 535 P.3d 1098 (2023)

Source: https://isc.idaho.gov/opinions/48900summ.pdf

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.

Idaho Code § 72-209 provides that the exemption from tort liability does not apply where the 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 reaches only the aggressor, not the employer generally, unless the employer provoked, authorized or was a party to the aggression. Idaho has no broader general intentional-tort exception beyond that carve-out. 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: Idaho Code § 72-201, § 72-209, § 72-211, § 72-223.

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

Distinctive state doctrine

Broadly worded statutory-employer immunity, with real limits shown by two applied cases

Idaho deems a party responsible or liable for workers' compensation benefits 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' compensation benefits to the resulting workers. The Idaho Supreme Court held 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. The reach of that immunity narrowed in 2023: Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC held that an independent contractor is not a contractor or subcontractor for this purpose and gets no immunity and it overruled Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207 (2003), which had turned the question on whether the hiring party was itself in the trade being performed.

Citation: Idaho Code § 72-216(1)-(2); Struhs v. Protection Technologies, Inc., 133 Idaho 715, 992 P.2d 164 (1999); Krinitt v. Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game, 162 Idaho 425, 398 P.3d 158 (2017); Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC, 172 Idaho 725, 535 P.3d 1098 (2023) (overruling Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207 (2003))

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