Construction Claim Rules in Kansas

Statutory interest rate

10% / year, fixed (contract claims, pre-judgment); floating, prime-linked (post-judgment)

Unpaid contract/construction debt accrues prejudgment interest at a fixed 10% per year default 'legal rate' when no other rate is agreed. (A separate, different floating rate applies only to civil tort claims filed on or after July 2023; don't apply that one to a contract/construction claim.) Postjudgment interest floats instead: four percentage points above the New York Federal Reserve Bank's discount rate on Fed borrowing, reset every July 1.

Compounding: Simple (statutes are silent on compounding; treated as simple in Kansas practice)

Citation: K.S.A. 16-201(a) (prejudgment/contract default); K.S.A. 16-204 (postjudgment)

Source: https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch16/016_002_0001.html

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 money becomes due, if the debt is liquidated (fixed and certain)

Kansas case law allows prejudgment interest on a liquidated claim, one where both the amount and the date it's due are fixed and certain, or ascertainable by mathematical computation, running from when the debt became due. The Kansas Court of Appeals has confirmed a good-faith dispute over liability doesn't by itself defeat this right on an otherwise liquidated claim.

Citation: K.S.A. 16-201; Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 20 Kan. App. 2d 1010 (1994)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1994/69-706.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Rate changed by a 2023 amendment; the accrual-date mechanics of the new tort-specific provision weren't independently confirmed this pass

For civil tort actions filed on or after July 1, 2023, K.S.A. 16-201(b) sets a specific prejudgment interest rate (two percentage points below the K.S.A. 16-204(e)(1) postjudgment rate). The statute's text on the exact accrual date for this newer tort-specific right wasn't independently pulled and confirmed this pass; treat it as likely following the same liquidated-claim logic as the Kraemer test above unless your research turns up otherwise.

Citation: K.S.A. 16-201(b) (2023 amendment)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapter-16/article-2/section-16-201/

This is a newer statutory provision; confirm the current accrual-date mechanics directly, since this pass could only verify the rate mechanism, not the precise start date, for tort claims filed after July 2023.

Actual Cash Value rule

Split by loss type: face policy value for total losses; repair cost (no depreciation) for partial losses

Kansas doesn't use one ACV formula for every claim. For a TOTAL loss of insured real-property improvements (fire, tornado, windstorm, lightning), the state's Valued Policy Law makes the face amount of the policy conclusive proof of value (no depreciation deduction), subject to exceptions for brand-new or recently-increased coverage. For a PARTIAL loss, case law instead measures ACV as the cost to repair without a depreciation deduction, though a policy that expressly defines ACV to include depreciation of both materials and labor may permit the insurer to depreciate both.

Citation: K.S.A. 40-905(a) (total loss); Thomas v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 233 Kan. 775 (1983) and Graves v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 4478468 (D. Kan. 2015) (partial loss)

Source: https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch40/040_009_0005.html

The precise holding language attributed to Thomas and Graves comes from a secondary legal-industry summary, not an independently pulled copy of either opinion.

ACV statute or regulation

No statute restricts labor depreciation, but a 1983 Kansas Insurance Department bulletin interpreting a state supreme court case held that ACV means repair or replacement cost without any depreciation deduction unless the policy specifically defines depreciation, and a later regulation requires depreciation deductions to be itemized.

Kansas Insurance Department Bulletin 1983-19 summarizes the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Thomas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 666 P.2d 676 (Kan. 1983), which held that where a policy uses the term actual cash value without defining it or without policy language permitting a depreciation deduction, the insurer may not reduce a repair-cost payment by depreciation at all. The bulletin instructed insurers to either pay full repair or replacement cost when the policy is silent, or add an approved endorsement expressly defining ACV to include depreciation. Separately, Kansas Administrative Regulation 40-1-34 (adopting the NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Model Regulation) requires that when a claim payment is reduced for betterment or depreciation, the deduction must be itemized in the claim file, specified by dollar amount, and appropriate to the deduction taken. Neither source specifically singles out labor cost for a depreciation ban distinct from materials, and a later federal case, Graves v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2015 WL 4478468 (D. Kan. 2015), held labor may be depreciated when the policy's ACV/depreciation language permits it, so the underlying rule still turns on policy language for policies with a defined ACV/depreciation clause.

Citation: Kan. Ins. Dep't Bulletin 1983-19; Kan. Admin. Regs. 40-1-34

Source: https://insurance.ks.gov/department/LegalIssues/bulletins/1983-19.html

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Kansas statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Kansas permits depreciating labor as part of ACV.

No Kansas statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, a federal court applying Kansas law held labor costs may be depreciated in determining ACV, affirmed by the Tenth Circuit.

Citation: Graves v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95127 (D. Kan. Jul. 22, 2015), aff'd, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6980 (10th Cir. April 21, 2017).

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

RESEARCHED from scratch. No holdback-timing statute found; the labor-depreciation holding is from a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey, not independently re-verified against the primary opinion in this pass.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Void by statute for public construction contracts; no Kansas case law found on private contracts

Kansas's Fairness in Public Construction Contract Act flatly voids any provision in a public construction contract that purports to waive a party's right to collect damages for delays caused by another party to the contract, declaring such a provision unenforceable and against public policy; the Act's rights and duties cannot be waived or varied by the contract's own terms. A genuine search this pass did not locate any Kansas appellate case addressing the enforceability of a no-damages-for-delay clause in a private (non-public) Kansas construction contract.

Citation: K.S.A. 16-1907 (public contracts); no case law found for private contracts

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapter-16/article-19/section-16-1907/

This statutory override is titled and structured around public construction contracts; it is not confirmed to reach purely private construction agreements, and no Kansas case law fills that gap. Don't assume the statute protects a private-contract claimant without confirming the contract in question is a public one.

Construction contract filing deadline

5 years for a written contract claim

Kansas sets a 5-year limitations period for an action upon any agreement, contract, or promise in writing, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim.

Citation: K.S.A. 60-511

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapter-60/article-5/section-60-511/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Kansas's new-employer unemployment tax rate is 1.75% of the first $15,100 in wages per employee; construction new-employers pay 5.55% instead.

Most new employers pay a flat 1.75% rate, while new employers in the construction industry pay a higher 5.55% rate. Established employers are experience-rated from 0.0% up to 6.95%. The taxable wage base is $15,100 per employee per year.

Citation: Kansas Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Tax

Source: https://www.dol.ks.gov/employers/employer-services/unemployment-tax

Last checked: 2026-08-26

The 1.75% general rate was already accurate (confirmed via a source agreeing with the existing figure). Added the 5.55% construction rate from that same source. One other source gave conflicting figures (2.7%/6%) for what appears to be the same year; given the general rate in that source didn't match the confirmed 1.75%, its construction figure was not trusted either. This should be reconfirmed directly against dol.ks.gov's own rate table before being treated as fully certain.

Workers' compensation rating

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

Kansas relies on NCCI to develop workers' compensation loss costs and classification codes, filed with the Kansas Insurance Department for approval, the standard advisory-rate model used across most states. The Kansas Department of Labor's Workers Compensation Division separately handles claims administration and dispute resolution.

Citation: NCCI Kansas State Advisory Forum, Kansas Department of Labor

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Documents/II_StateAdvisoryForumState_KS_2025.pdf

Prevailing wage law

Kansas has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed its version in 1987.

Kansas's Little Davis-Bacon Act was repealed by the state legislature in 1987. Public construction contracts let by Kansas 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

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Kansas has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667 (State Plan roster)

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Kansas's high court holds OSHA violations constitute evidence of negligence, not negligence per se.

The Kansas Supreme Court confirmed OSHA violations are relevant evidence a jury may weigh in assessing negligence, consistent with the majority rule used by most states.

Citation: Balagna v. Shawnee Cty., 668 P.2d 157, 165-66 (Kan. 1983).

Source: https://storage.googleapis.com/jnl-bcls-j-bclr-files/journals/1/articles/232/63a30c0a100a2.pdf

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive, exhaustively-footnoted 2020 Boston College Law Review survey of all 50 states + DC on this exact question, cross-checked against the underlying case for accuracy where feasible.

Third-party contribution against the employer

Kansas may extend statutory-employer protection to qualifying contractors; non-immune third parties are reached via premises, retained control, negligent undertaking, products, or vehicles.

The source doesn't detail Kansas's statutory-employer qualifying test beyond confirming it exists.

Citation: Kan. Stat. §44-503(a) et seq.; Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387, 837 P.2d 348 (1992).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1992/66-352-3.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. CORRECTED: the prior citation, "Bright v. Ohio National Life Assurance Corp., 317 P.3d 127 (Kan. 2014)," could not be confirmed. Replaced with Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387 (1992) -- Kansas's leading statutory-employer case, confirmed real and directly on point (a millwright injured in a grain-elevator equipment replacement, addressing exactly this doctrine).

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under §§44-501 et seq., "subject to statutory exceptions"; this source doesn't detail what those exceptions are.

Kan. Stat. §§44-501 et seq. generally makes compensation exclusive against the employer, subject to statutory exceptions; qualifying contractors may receive statutory-employer protection. The manual doesn't detail the exceptions; confirm directly.

Citation: Kan. Stat. §44-503(a) et seq.; Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387, 837 P.2d 348 (1992).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1992/66-352-3.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. CORRECTED using the same fix already confirmed for this state's thirdPartyContribution entry: "Bright v. Ohio National Life Assurance Corp." was unconfirmable. Replaced with Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387 (1992), Kansas's real leading statutory-employer case.

Distinctive state doctrine

Layered "pyramid" statutory-employer stacking, plus a well-established special-employer doctrine for staffing/temp placements; dual capacity recognized

More than one employer in a contractor-subcontractor-employer pyramid may simultaneously qualify as an injured worker's statutory employer, each entitled to exclusive-remedy protection. Separately, Kansas has a well-developed 'special employer doctrine': in Scott v. Altmar (2002), a temporary staffing agency's client at a construction site was found to be the worker's 'special employer' and was granted exclusive-remedy immunity even though the staffing agency was the worker's formal employer; both the general (staffing agency) and special (client) employer can be treated as employers for workers' comp purposes at the same time. Kansas explicitly recognizes the dual capacity doctrine, allowing an employee to sue the employer when it acted in a genuinely separate third-party capacity, such as manufacturer or lessor of workplace products.

Citation: Scott v. Altmar, 272 Kan. 1280 (2002); Selle v. The Boeing Co., 17 Kan. App. 2d 543 (1992) (pyramid stacking)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2002/86708.html