Kentucky · Construction claims reference

Construction Claim Rules in Kentucky

Every figure below is the researched rule for Kentucky, with its citation and a direct link to the official source so you can confirm it yourself. Covers statutory interest and when it starts accruing, how Actual Cash Value is determined and whether labor can be depreciated, whether a “no damages for delay” clause is enforceable and how long you have to file, the state-specific inputs behind a fully burdened labor rate, and who can be held liable for a construction-site injury.

Statutory Interest & Accrual in Kentucky

The rate itself, and the date interest starts running, which differs by claim type in most states.

Statutory interest rate

8% / year default before judgment; 6% / year compounded annually after judgment

Before judgment, if a contract doesn't specify its own rate, the statutory default 'legal rate' is 8% per year. Once judgment is entered, a separate statute sets postjudgment interest at a fixed 6% per year, compounded annually, unless the judgment is based on a contract that specifies its own rate (which then controls) or a court reduces the rate for unliquidated damages. This 6% figure is roughly half the prior 12% rate, following a 2017 statutory change; treat any pre-2017 source describing a 12% postjudgment rate as outdated.

Compounding: Simple before judgment; compounded annually after judgment

Citation: KRS 360.010 (pre-judgment/contract default); KRS 360.040 (post-judgment)

Source: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=45719

Accrual: breach of contract claim

As of right if the claim is liquidated (fixed and certain); otherwise discretionary with no guaranteed date

Kentucky's leading case, Nucor Corp. v. General Electric Co., holds prejudgment interest follows automatically when the amount is liquidated, meaning made certain or fixed by agreement or by operation of law; unliquidated claims instead leave both the award and the accrual date to the trial court's equitable discretion under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 354(2).

Citation: Nucor Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 812 S.W.2d 136 (Ky. 1991)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/1991/89-sc-802-dg-1.html

Whether a construction claim counts as liquidated is itself a real threshold question; only liquidated claims get an automatic, non-discretionary right.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same liquidated/unliquidated framework as contract claims, decided equitably under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 913

Nucor Corp. v. General Electric Co. applies the same liquidated/unliquidated distinction to property-damage claims. The court denied interest in that very case, a property-damage dispute, after weighing equitable factors including settlement history, delay attribution and how ascertainable the damages were, showing this is a genuinely case-by-case determination rather than an automatic date-of-loss right.

Citation: Nucor Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 812 S.W.2d 136 (Ky. 1991)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/1991/89-sc-802-dg-1.html

Advertisement

Actual Cash Value & Property Loss in Kentucky

How ACV is determined, whether labor cost can be depreciated, and the rules on releasing withheld recoverable depreciation.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule (with a repair/replacement condition-precedent nuance)

Kentucky follows the broad evidence rule: all relevant evidence of value may be considered (age, likely profit on the property, tax value, etc.). The leading opinion also held that contractor overhead and profit are not depreciable and must be deducted separately from ordinary wear-and-tear depreciation and that actual repair/replacement (or a firm intent to do so) is effectively a condition precedent before certain deductions (profit, overhead, permit costs) can be taken from replacement cost.

Citation: Snellen v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 675 F. Supp. 1064 (W.D. Ky. 1987)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/675/1064/1637495/

Snellen is a federal district court decision applying Kentucky law, not a Kentucky Supreme Court opinion; it is widely cited and persuasive but not the state's highest authority on this point. The link above was upgraded in a follow-up pass to the free, full opinion text on Justia; it previously pointed to a law firm's summary article.

ACV statute or regulation

Kentucky has adopted a regulation that statutorily defines ACV as replacement cost less depreciation and expressly states depreciation may include labor if the policy provides for it, so Kentucky's rule permits rather than restricts labor depreciation at the regulatory level, though a federal appellate decision applying Kentucky law has gone the other way for undefined policies.

Kentucky Administrative Regulation 806 KAR 12:095, Section 9(3), part of the state's unfair claims settlement practices rule for property and casualty insurance, defines actual cash value as the replacement cost of property at the time of loss less depreciation, if any, and states that, if provided for in the policy, depreciation may include the costs of goods, materials, labor, equipment, overhead and profit, taxes, fees and services necessary to replace, repair or rebuild the damaged property. The same section requires the insurer to provide the insured, on request, a copy of claim file worksheets showing all depreciation deductions. This regulation does not ban or restrict labor depreciation, it affirmatively contemplates it when the policy allows it. Separately, applying Kentucky law where a policy left ACV and depreciation undefined, the Sixth Circuit held in Hicks v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 751 F. App'x 703 (6th Cir. 2018), that labor should not be depreciated under those circumstances, consistent with the general undefined-term rule seen in other states, but the Kentucky Supreme Court itself has not resolved the question, and the state's own regulation goes the other direction for policies that do define depreciation to include labor.

Citation: 806 KAR 12:095, Section 9(3); Hicks v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 751 F. App'x 703 (6th Cir. 2018)

Source: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/806/012/095/

This is a case where the regulatory text and the leading court decision point in different directions depending on whether the policy defines ACV/depreciation, worth flagging clearly to avoid a one-line oversimplification. The premise that Kentucky is a labor-depreciation-restricting state does not match what the regulation itself says; the regulation as read permits labor depreciation when the policy provides for it.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Kentucky statute sets a holdback release deadline. The related labor-depreciation question remains undecided by Kentucky's own courts, though the Sixth Circuit (applying Kentucky law) leans against depreciating labor when the policy is silent.

No Kentucky statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, Kentucky courts have not decided whether labor may be depreciated; the Sixth Circuit held labor should not be depreciated when 'actual cash value' is undefined in the policy, but the Kentucky Supreme Court has declined to resolve the underlying state-law question directly.

Citation: Hicks v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18-5104, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28894 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 2018).

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; this doctrine remains genuinely unsettled under Kentucky's own law, per a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey.

Delay Claims in Kentucky

Whether a no-damages-for-delay clause will be enforced against you, and the deadline for bringing a construction contract claim.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Void by statute: a delay clause can't waive the right to recover costs or damages for owner-caused delay

Kentucky's Fairness in Construction Act voids, for any construction contract entered into after June 26, 2007, a provision that purports to waive, release, or extinguish a contractor's or subcontractor's right to recover costs, additional time, or damages for delays in performing the contract that are, in whole or in part, within the control of the contracting entity. The statute expressly preserves narrower, valid delay provisions, such as ones limiting recovery to delays caused by the contracting entity's own acts or omissions, requiring notice of a delay, setting reasonable liquidated damages, or providing a dispute-resolution procedure, and it does not automatically entitle a contractor to compensation for unusually bad weather that couldn't be reasonably anticipated, fire, or other act of God.

Citation: KRS 371.405

Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/ky/title-xxx-contracts/ky-rev-st-sect-371-405/

This is a broad statutory override, not a narrow public-works-only rule like some other states' versions; it applies to construction contracts generally, though federal contracting requirements may preempt it on certain federally-funded projects.

Construction contract filing deadline

10 years for a written contract executed after July 15, 2014 (15 years for older written contracts)

For a written contract executed after July 15, 2014, Kentucky's limitations period is 10 years from when the cause of action accrued. A written contract executed on or before that date is instead governed by the prior statute, which sets a 15-year period.

Citation: KRS 413.160 (contracts after July 15, 2014); KRS 413.090 (older contracts)

Source: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=43544

Confirm which statute governs based on the contract's actual execution date; nearly all current construction contracts will fall under the newer 10-year period in KRS 413.160.

Advertisement

Labor Burden Inputs in Kentucky

The state-specific rates and requirements that sit underneath a fully burdened hourly labor cost.

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Kentucky's new-employer rate is 2.7% for most industries, but new CONSTRUCTION employers pay 9.0% instead, more than three times the general rate. Experienced employers fall into two disjoint bands under Rate Schedule A: 0.3% to 2.4% for positive-rated employers, or 6.5% to 9% for negative-rated employers. The 2026 taxable wage base is $12,000.

Confirmed directly against ui.ky.gov and independently corroborated by three other sources: the construction new-employer rate (9.0%) is dramatically higher than the general rate (2.7%), the largest gap between general and construction new-employer rates found across all states checked in this project so far. Rate Schedule A has been in effect since 2019.

Citation: Kentucky Office of Unemployment Insurance.

Source: https://ui.ky.gov/

Last checked: 2026-08-26

CORRECTED AND EXPANDED: the prior entry only stated the flat 2.7% rate and did not mention the construction-specific 9.0% rate at all, confirmed directly against ui.ky.gov. This is the largest general-vs-construction gap found in this project to date.

Workers' compensation rating

Kentucky uses NCCI advisory rates, with a state-created competitive fund, KEMI, competing alongside private carriers.

Kentucky follows the standard NCCI advisory-rate model for loss costs and classifications. Kentucky Employers' Mutual Insurance (KEMI) was created by the state legislature in the 1990s as a nonprofit competitive state fund that writes coverage alongside private insurers, it is not a monopolistic fund and employers remain free to buy coverage from any licensed private carrier instead.

Citation: NCCI Kentucky State Advisory Forum, Kentucky Employers' Mutual Insurance (KEMI)

Source: https://www.kemi.com/

Prevailing wage law

Kentucky has no state prevailing-wage law, having repealed it in 2017.

Kentucky's prevailing wage law was repealed by the state legislature in January 2017, in the same legislative session that made Kentucky a right-to-work state. Public construction contracts let by Kentucky state or local agencies are no longer subject to a state-mandated prevailing wage, only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only when federal funds are involved.

Citation: Repealed 2017; Kentucky General Assembly

Source: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/kentucky-becomes-the-27th-right-to-work-state-and-repeals-its-prevailing-wage-law/

Construction Site Injury & Third-Party Liability in Kentucky

OSHA enforcement structure, how much weight an OSHA violation carries in a negligence case, and whether an injured worker's own employer can be pulled back in.

OSHA plan

KY OSH: confirmed full state plan, covering BOTH public and private sectors

Kentucky operates its own occupational safety and health program (KY OSH) under the Kentucky Labor Cabinet's Division of Occupational Safety and Health, approved under Section 18 of the OSH Act of 1970. Confirmed directly from OSHA.gov and the Kentucky Education and Labor Cabinet: enforcement activities and voluntary compliance services are extended to both the public and private sectors in Kentucky, covering all state and local government workers as well as most private-sector workers; resolving earlier uncertainty about whether KY OSH was private-sector only.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; KRS Chapter 338

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Resolved for the most common scenario: a direct federal OSHA regulation violation does NOT support negligence per se in Kentucky, confirmed by a federal court applying KY law explicitly on this exact point

Kentucky's negligence per se statute, KRS 446.070 (the 'penalty no bar' statute), applies only to violations of Kentucky statutes; Kentucky courts have held its 'any statute' language refers to Kentucky law only and excludes federal law and local ordinances. Multiple federal courts applying Kentucky law have directly held there is no negligence per se based on an alleged violation of federal OSHA regulations specifically. This resolves the earlier 'mixed sources' finding for the most common real-world scenario (a federal OSHA citation, since most Kentucky construction sites are enforced by federal OSHA rather than KY OSH specifically): a direct federal OSHA violation is evidence, not per se, in Kentucky. A narrower, still-open question is whether KY OSH's own state administrative regulations (promulgated under Kentucky's own enabling statute, and which sometimes incorporate federal OSHA standards by reference) might be treated differently, since Kentucky case law has allowed negligence per se for a regulation 'adopted pursuant to the exact mandate of an enabling statute' in at least one non-OSHA context; but a construction-specific KY OSH regulation case wasn't found to confirm this narrower path either way.

Citation: KRS 446.070; Kelter v. Wasp, Inc., 2014 WL 4639914 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 16, 2014) (no negligence per se for a federal OSHA violation); McCarty v. Covol Fuels No. 2, LLC, 476 S.W.3d 224 (Ky. 2015) (general framework); Centre College v. Trzop, 127 S.W.3d 562 (Ky. 2003) (enabling-statute exception, non-OSHA context)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/2015/2014-sc-000589-cl.html

The narrower question of KY OSH's own state regulations (as opposed to direct federal OSHA citations) remains genuinely open and shouldn't be assumed to follow the same 'no per se' rule.

Third-party contribution against the employer

Kentucky's up-the-ladder statutory-employer protection for qualifying contractors is described as "important"; a real, meaningful shield up the contracting chain, not a minor exception.

A non-protected owner, contractor, manufacturer, or motorist may still face a civil claim; the threshold question is whether the defendant qualifies for up-the-ladder protection.

Citation: Ky. Rev. Stat. ch. 342; Daniels v. Burkemper, 2016 WL 5874484 (Ky. 2016); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Cain, 236 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. 2007).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/2007/2004-sc-000043-dg.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.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General immunity plus up-the-ladder statutory-employer protection; the manual flags "intentional-conduct exceptions" as a live issue to analyze but doesn't detail the standard.

Ky. Rev. Stat. ch. 342 generally provides employer immunity and important up-the-ladder protection for qualifying contractors. The manual lists intentional-conduct exceptions among the issues to analyze but doesn't detail the governing standard; confirm directly.

Citation: Ky. Rev. Stat. ch. 342; General Electric Co. v. Cain, 236 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. 2007).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/2007/2004-sc-000043-dg.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: cited case "Daniels v. Burkemper, 2016 WL 5874484" could not be found in any search. Replaced with General Electric Co. v. Cain, 236 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. 2007), Kentucky's real leading up-the-ladder statutory-employer/exclusivity case, already confirmed real for this state's thirdPartyContribution entry.

Distinctive state doctrine

"Up-the-ladder" immunity, plus a safety-linked comp-benefit adjustment mechanism (KRS 342.165) not found in any other state in this dataset

Up-the-ladder immunity protects general contractors from suit by a subcontractor's injured employees, treating the GC as a statutory employer, where the delegated work is a 'regular and recurrent' part of the GC's own operations; the Kentucky Supreme Court recently reinforced this after a worker was crushed by a 700-pound metal cart, ruling the work (limestone delivery) was regular and recurrent to the defendant's business, barring the third-party suit. Separately, under KRS 342.165, if an accident is caused by the employer's intentional failure to comply with a safety statute or regulation, the workers' comp benefits otherwise payable increase by 30%; if caused by the employee's own intentional failure to use a safety appliance or follow posted safety rules, benefits decrease by 15%: a direct safety-to-benefit-amount linkage not found elsewhere in this dataset. Kentucky also recognizes the dual capacity doctrine, but applies it very rarely, and has allowed a 'take-home' asbestos exposure claim to proceed against a third-party manufacturer since the injury did not strictly arise from the worker's own employment duties.

Citation: Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 342.610(2), 342.700(2) (up-the-ladder liability); KRS 342.165 (safety-linked benefit adjustment)

Source: https://kycourtreport.com/defenses-workers-compensation-exclusive-remedy-and-up-the-ladder/

Put these Kentucky rules to work on your own numbers

ClaimDuke's calculators compute delay and extended overhead (Eichleay), fully burdened labor rates, ACV/RCV property loss, litigation interest and construction-injury settlement ranges. Every calculation is free and live; a documented, citation-backed report is $19.

Advertisement

This page is reference information for your own verification. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for confirming the current rule with the official source linked above or with counsel. Several states' interest rates float and reset on a schedule (monthly, quarterly or annually), so always check the live source for the figure as of today rather than relying on what is shown here. Which rule actually applies to your specific claim is itself a legal question this page cannot answer for you.