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 postjudgment rate floats with the New York Federal Reserve discount rate and resets every July 1. Check the current figure before calculating a postjudgment number.

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

For tort claims filed on or after July 1, 2023, a separate statutory rate applies; the accrual date for that newer provision is not settled here

For civil tort actions filed on or after July 1, 2023, K.S.A. 16-201(b) sets a prejudgment interest rate two percentage points below the postjudgment rate in K.S.A. 16-204(e)(1). The statute's text on the exact accrual date for that newer right has not been confirmed, so treat it as following the same liquidated claim logic as the Kraemer test above unless a closer reading shows 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 provision. Confirm the accrual date mechanics directly for a tort claim 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

Thomas held that actual cash value could not be reduced by depreciation where neither the policy nor state law provided for it, so the outcome turns on whether the policy defines the term. Graves v. American Family (10th Cir. 2017) applied depreciation, including labor, under a policy that did define it.

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. 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 governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer in Graves v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., holding that where the policy defines actual cash value as the cost to repair or replace less allowance for physical deterioration and depreciation, a reasonably prudent insured would expect depreciation to apply to the asset as a whole, including labor. Kansas state courts have not decided the question. 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.

Citation: Graves v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 686 F. App'x 536 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-10th-circuit/1857451.html

Graves is an unpublished order applying Kansas law to a policy that defined actual cash value. Where the policy does not define it, Thomas v. American Family governs and no depreciation is deducted.

“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 voids any provision in a public construction contract that waives a party's right to collect damages for delays caused by another party to the contract and the Act's rights cannot be waived or varied by the contract itself. No Kansas appellate decision addresses whether a no-damages-for-delay clause is enforceable in a private 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/

The statute is written around public construction contracts. Do not assume it protects a party to a private contract.

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. 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: 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

Confirm both rates against the Department of Labor's own rate table. Published figures for Kansas vary between sources and the construction rate is the one that matters on a construction payroll.

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

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: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-258a(a)

Source: https://www.ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch60/060_002_0058a.html

Verified against: statute text of Kan. Stat. Ann. s 60-258a

Non-economic damages cap

No cap, the enacted limit was held unconstitutional

The non-economic damages cap was held to violate the state constitutional right to trial by jury.

Citation: Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 309 Kan. 1127 (2019)

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Kansas has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under federal jurisdiction the citation is issued by an OSHA area office and contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Federal OSHA does not cover state and local government employees, so a public employee injured on a public job falls outside it. Reporting deadlines are 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 (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 has held that OSHA violations are relevant evidence a jury may weigh in assessing negligence rather than negligence per se. 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: 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

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.

Kansas's statutory employer test is set out in Bright v. Cargill, Inc., which involved a millwright injured during a grain elevator equipment replacement. Third-party claims otherwise turn on premises liability, retained control, negligent undertaking, product defect and vehicle theories.

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

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under Kan. Stat. §§ 44-501 et seq., subject to statutory exceptions

Kan. Stat. §§ 44-501 et seq. make compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer, subject to statutory exceptions and qualifying contractors may receive statutory employer protection under § 44-503(a). Confirm the current exceptions directly before relying on them. 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: 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

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