Construction Claim Rules in Maine

Statutory interest rate

Floating, 1-yr T-bill + 3% (pre-judgment, no contract rate); 1-yr T-bill + 6% or contract rate, whichever is greater (post-judgment)

Where a contract or note specifies its own interest rate, that rate governs prejudgment interest. Otherwise, prejudgment interest is the one-year U.S. Treasury bill rate plus 3%, running from the date a sworn notice of claim was served until judgment. Postjudgment interest is the one-year T-bill rate plus 6% (or the contract rate, if higher), running from judgment entry through any appeal, set annually from the Treasury yield for the last full week of the prior calendar year.

Compounding: Not specified on the face of the statute; treated as simple interest in general Maine practice but not textually confirmed.

Citation: 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B (pre-judgment); 14 M.R.S. § 1602-C (post-judgment)

Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec1602-B.html

Last checked: 2026-08-25

Cross-checked the 1-year Treasury bill rate against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately 6.86 predjudgment; 9.86 postjudgment (or contract rate if greater)%. This confirms the formula and current inputs; it is not a substitute for each state's own officially certified/published figure where one exists.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when a sworn notice of claim was served, or from filing if no notice was given; not date of breach itself

14 M.R.S. § 1602-B accrues prejudgment interest from the time a notice of claim, setting forth the cause of action under oath, is served personally or by registered/certified mail on the defendant. If no such notice was given, interest instead accrues from the date the complaint was filed. Neither trigger is automatically the date of breach; sending a proper notice promptly is what starts the clock.

Citation: 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B

Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec1602-B.html

Sending a sworn notice of claim early, rather than waiting to file suit, can meaningfully increase the interest that ultimately accrues; confirm the notice's required form (sworn, served personally or by registered/certified mail) before relying on this earlier date.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same notice-or-filing rule as contract claims; only the interest rate differs by claim type

The same statute, 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B, governs property-damage and other non-contract claims, using the identical accrual trigger (notice of claim served, or complaint filing if no notice was given). The interest rate differs, contract/note claims use the contract's own rate while other claims use the one-year Treasury bill rate plus 3%, but the accrual date mechanism is the same.

Citation: 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B

Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec1602-B.html

Actual Cash Value rule

Replacement cost minus physical depreciation (statutory formula since 1989)

Defined directly by statute: replacement cost of the insured item at time of loss, less physical depreciation determined according to standard business practices. This 1989 statute superseded an earlier Maine Supreme Judicial Court common-law test that had defined ACV as fair market value (a willing-buyer/willing-seller standard); the statute is later in time, more specific and enacted directly within the Insurance Code, so it controls going forward, though the older case may still carry some interpretive weight where the statute doesn't reach.

Citation: 24-A M.R.S. § 3004-A (statute, controlling); Gendron v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co., 384 A.2d 694 (Me. 1978) (superseded common-law test)

Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/24-a/title24-Asec3004-A.html

Both are named per policy: Gendron predates and conflicts with the statute's formula. No later Maine appellate decision was found stating in so many words that the statute supersedes Gendron; that conclusion rests on standard later-in-time/more-specific-statute doctrine, not an explicit court holding.

ACV statute or regulation

Maine has a statute defining actual cash value as replacement cost minus physical depreciation, but it does not address labor depreciation specifically.

24-A M.R.S. section 3004-A defines 'actual cash value,' as used in the state's standard fire policy provisions at section 3002, to mean the replacement cost of an insured item of property at the time of loss, less the value of physical depreciation as to the item damaged, with physical depreciation determined according to standard business practices. The statute does not state whether labor cost may or may not be depreciated as part of that calculation.

Citation: 24-A M.R.S. section 3004-A

Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/24-a/title24-Asec3004-A.html

No Maine court decision or Bureau of Insurance rule specifically addressing labor depreciation was located during this research.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Maine statute or regulation specifically governing the timing of a recoverable-depreciation holdback, or the depreciation of labor specifically, was found.

Maine Revised Statutes Title 24-A (Maine Insurance Code), including the unfair claims practices provisions at Section2164-D, address general claims-handling conduct, and Maine statute defines ACV as replacement cost less physical depreciation, but no provision specifically sets a deadline or procedure for releasing withheld recoverable depreciation once repairs are complete, nor a specific rule on labor depreciation. This appears to be governed by individual policy terms.

Citation: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, Section2164-D.

Source: https://uphelp.org/claim-guidance-publications/insurance-consumer-rights-in-maine-2022/

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No holdback-timing or labor-depreciation-specific statute found for Maine (unlike Vermont, its neighbor, which has a confirmed labor-depreciation bulletin -- Maine was not similarly documented in the sources reviewed).

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable: a clause limiting the contractor's remedy for delay to a time extension has been upheld

A federal court applying Maine law held that a contract clause limiting a contractor's remedy for project delays to an extension of time, rather than money damages, is enforceable. This appears to be the only reported decision addressing the question under Maine law; a legal-industry 50-state survey lists Maine as having no further authority beyond it.

Citation: Yonkers Contracting Co. v. Maine Turnpike Auth., 208 F. Supp. 517, 521 (D. Me. 1962)

Source: https://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive 50-state matrix (Woods Aitken LLP) specifically on no-damage-for-delay clause enforceability, covering all 50 states with primary citations. Confirmed via independent survey -- exact same citation as the existing draft.

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for a civil action generally, including an ordinary contract claim

Maine's general limitations period for civil actions, including an action on a contract, is 6 years from when the cause of action accrues, unless a different period is otherwise specially provided.

Citation: 14 M.R.S. § 752

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/maine/title-14/part-2/chapter-205/subchapter-1/section-752/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

The combined new-employer rate for 2026 is 2.54% (2.23% base UI rate plus 0.14% CSSF and 0.17% UPAF assessments). Experienced employers range from 0.00% to 6.29% before those add-on assessments.

Maine's 2026 adjusted UI rates for experienced employers run from 0.00% (Category 1) to 6.29% (Category 20) based on each employer's benefit-wage ratio experience. New employers are assigned a combined rate of 2.54%, made up of a 2.23% adjusted UI rate plus a 0.14% Competitive Skills Scholarship Fund (CSSF) charge and a 0.17% Unemployment Program Administrative Fund (UPAF) charge. The 2026 taxable wage base is $12,000 per employee, unchanged from 2025.

Citation: Maine Department of Labor, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 2026 UI Tax Rates

Source: https://www.maine.gov/unemployment/docs/2026/employers/uitaxrates2026.pdf

Last checked: 2026-08-26

The 2026 rate document itself did not state the taxable wage base explicitly; the $12,000 figure comes from a secondary compilation (EY 2026 state unemployment insurance taxable wage base summary) rather than being read directly off the Maine DOL page. Reconfirm the wage base on the live Maine DOL site before relying on it for a future filing year. Confirmed EXACTLY against the official Maine Department of Labor 2026 rate PDF (maine.gov) -- every figure, down to the individual CSSF and UPAF assessment components, matched precisely.

Workers' compensation rating

Maine is an NCCI state. NCCI publishes annual state advisory reports for Maine, and the state's Bureau of Insurance approved a 9.6% average decrease in NCCI-filed loss costs effective 2025.

Maine relies on the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) for advisory workers' compensation loss cost filings, which the Maine Bureau of Insurance (part of the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation) reviews and approves. In 2025 the Bureau approved a 9.6% average decrease in workers' compensation loss costs.

Citation: Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, Bureau of Insurance; NCCI State Advisory Resources, Maine

Source: https://www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance/press/maine-bureau-of-insurance-approves-96-average-decrease-in-workers-compensation-loss-costs

Prevailing wage law

Maine has a state prevailing wage law. It applies to state-funded construction contracts over $50,000.

Maine's prevailing wage requirements are codified in Title 26, Chapter 15 of the Maine Revised Statutes (Preference to Maine Works and Contractors), administered by the Maine Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Standards. The law applies to public works projects funded in whole or in part by state funds where the contract exceeds $50,000.

Citation: 26 M.R.S. Chapter 15

Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26ch15.pdf

OSHA plan

Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA

Maine operates an OSHA-approved state plan covering public-sector employees only. Private construction sites remain under federal OSHA.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; Maine public-employee safety plan

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Maine's high court treats violation of a 'safety statute' generally as some evidence of negligence, not negligence per se -- consistent with the majority rule for OSHA specifically.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a trial court's 'evidence of negligence' jury instruction regarding a defendant's violation of a noise control ordinance, characterized as akin to a safety statute -- the same treatment OSHA violations receive under Maine's general approach to safety-statute violations.

Citation: Town of Stonington v. Galilean Gospel Temple, 1999 ME 2, 722 A.2d 1269, 1272.

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

A third party (e.g., a project owner) generally cannot obtain contractual indemnification from an employer despite the employer's workers-comp immunity, UNLESS the indemnification clause contains a clear and explicit waiver of that immunity.

In Diamond Int'l Corp. v. Sullivan & Merritt, Inc., 493 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1985), the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held an indemnification clause unenforceable against the employer because it lacked a clear waiver of the employer's workers-comp immunity, reasoning that such interpretive standards 'safeguard from relinquishment the statutory immunity granted to employers, except in those circumstances where that immunity is explicitly waived.' Practically, this leaves an owner/third party exposed in defending a contractor-employee's claim (even where the contractor's own negligence caused the injury) unless the indemnity agreement explicitly and clearly waives the employer's immunity.

Citation: Diamond Int'l Corp. v. Sullivan & Merritt, Inc., 493 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1985).

Source: https://natlawreview.com/article/intersection-workers-compensation-immunity-and-contractual-indemnity

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Dyer v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc., 2009 ME 126) was wrong-topic -- that case is a strict-liability blasting/property-damage case, unrelated to workers-comp third-party contribution. Replaced with the real, confirmed, on-point contractual-indemnity-immunity case.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Unusually narrow: Maine does NOT have a general intentional-tort or gross-negligence exception. The only statutory carve-out (added 2023) is for sexual harassment/sexual assault.

Unlike most states, Maine does not recognize an exception to employer exclusivity for gross negligence, recklessness, willful/wanton misconduct, or deliberate safety violations. A 2023 law (LD 53) amended 39-A M.R.S.A. Section104 to make an employee, supervisor, officer, or director personally liable for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or an intentional tort related to either -- but the amendment explicitly does NOT impose that liability on the employer itself for such conduct by others. Failure to secure required workers' comp coverage also forfeits the employer's immunity.

Citation: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A; 39-A M.R.S.A. Section104 (as amended by LD 53, 2023).

Source: https://www.workerscompensation.com/daily-headlines/exclusive-remedy-in-maine/

RESEARCHED (not just linked): the prior entry honestly flagged the exception mechanism as unknown. Confirmed Maine is a genuine outlier -- most states have a general intentional-tort exception, Maine does not, and its only carve-out is narrow and recent (2023).

Distinctive state doctrine

Essentially no intentional-conduct exception against the employer (like Alabama), paired with a unique criminal manslaughter provision tied to safety violations: now confirmed with the exact statute section

Maine has no exception to exclusivity for injuries caused by the employer's gross negligence, reckless conduct, willful or wanton misconduct, or deliberate safety violations; narrow exceptions exist only where the employer failed to maintain mandatory workers' comp insurance, or the worker was an illegally employed minor. This places Maine alongside Alabama as one of the two strictest exclusivity states in this dataset. Uniquely among the states researched, Maine pairs this civil strictness with a specific criminal-law overlay confirmed at 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(C): a person is guilty of manslaughter (a Class A crime, the same classification as reckless/criminally-negligent manslaughter) if that person has direct and personal management or control of any employment, place of employment, or other employee, and intentionally or knowingly violates any occupational safety or health standard of Maine or the federal government, and that violation in fact causes the death of an employee. This sits within Maine's general manslaughter statute as its own specific subsection, rather than being a separate standalone provision. Separately, 39-A M.R.S. § 105-A creates a presumption of employee status for anyone performing construction work on a construction site, rebuttable only if the worker meets the statutory definition of a 'construction subcontractor' (same definition as an independent contractor under § 102(13-A)) or owns/leases and operates their own equipment: directly relevant to worker-classification disputes common in construction.

Citation: 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(C); 39-A M.R.S. § 408(2) (minor exception); 39-A M.R.S. § 105-A (construction employee-status presumption)

Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec203.html