Construction Claim Rules in Maryland

Statutory interest rate

10% / year, fixed

General rate for money judgments, including contract/construction claims. Maryland has no separate statute for prejudgment interest on contract claims specifically; it's generally a common-law entitlement (as of right on liquidated damages, discretionary otherwise), typically awarded at this same 10% rate once granted.

Compounding: Simple

Citation: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-107(a)

Source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/laws/StatuteText?article=gcj&section=11-107

Don't confuse with § 11-106, which sets a different (contract-tied) rate specifically for loans/promissory notes, not general construction contract claims.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

As of right (automatic) from the date the debt became certain, definite and liquidated, if that date is fixed before judgment; otherwise discretionary

Maryland's leading case, Buxton v. Buxton, holds that prejudgment interest is allowed as a matter of right when the obligation to pay and the amount due became certain, definite and liquidated by a specific date prior to judgment, for example a written contract with a fixed payment date. Interest then runs from that date. When the contract damages are not fixed in that way, the award and its accrual date fall instead into a discretionary middle category.

Citation: Buxton v. Buxton, 363 Md. 634, 770 A.2d 152 (2001)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2001/60a00-1.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

As of right from the date of loss, but only if the loss value is readily ascertainable; otherwise discretionary

Buxton v. Buxton also addresses property-damage and conversion-type claims: interest is allowed as of right, running from the date the loss occurred, when the value is readily ascertainable, for example a specific, calculable repair cost. If the amount instead requires opinion or judgment to fix, the claim falls into the discretionary category rather than the automatic one.

Citation: Buxton v. Buxton, 363 Md. 634, 770 A.2d 152 (2001)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2001/60a00-1.html

Whether a given construction property-damage claim counts as 'readily ascertainable' is a real threshold question; less clear-cut claims may need to rely on the court's discretion rather than an automatic date-of-loss right.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule

Case-law standard weighing multiple valuation factors rather than a fixed formula.

Citation: Schreiber v. Pacific Coast Fire Ins. Co., 195 Md. 639 (Md. 1950)

Source: https://calculators.law/caselaw/decisions/Zb18xGW2Rgdn/schreiber-v-pacific-coast-fire-insurance

A follow-up verification pass found the original citation ('75 A.2d 108') was incorrect; the case is real, but its correct Maryland Reports citation is 195 Md. 639 (1950); a parallel Atlantic Reporter citation could not be independently confirmed. No free full-text host (CourtListener, Justia, or Casetext) could be located for this 1950 opinion; Maryland Court of Appeals decisions from this era have spotty free-database coverage. Recommend Westlaw/Lexis or a law library for the primary text.

ACV statute or regulation

Maryland does not currently have an adopted statute or regulation restricting labor depreciation in ACV, though one has been proposed and a related bill was introduced in 2026.

In April 2025 the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) circulated a proposed bulletin titled 'Depreciation of Labor for Claims Settled on an Actual Cash Value Basis,' which would treat depreciating labor cost (rather than materials only) as an unfair claim settlement practice and would require insurers to remove policy language permitting labor depreciation. As of the May 2025 comment period this bulletin remained proposed, not adopted, and industry commenters (including APCIA) opposed it. Separately, Maryland House Bill 283 was introduced in the 2026 regular session to establish by statute the method for calculating ACV recovery on residential and commercial property claims issued or renewed on or after October 1, 2026. This research could not confirm whether the MIA bulletin was finalized or whether HB 283 passed and was signed into law before the end of the 2026 session.

Citation: Proposed MIA Bulletin, Depreciation of Labor for Claims Settled on an Actual Cash Value Basis (April 2025, unadopted as last confirmed); Maryland HB 283 (2026 Regular Session, introduced)

Source: https://insurance.maryland.gov/Insurer/Documents/bulletins/Proposed-Bulletin-Depreciation-of-Labor-4172025.pdf

Status is unresolved as of this research. The proposed bulletin's final adoption status and HB 283's final disposition (passed, signed, or died in committee) could not be verified from available sources and should be confirmed against the MIA bulletins page and the Maryland General Assembly bill tracker before this is treated as settled law.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Maryland statute currently sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, the Maryland Insurance Administration is actively debating a bulletin (as of early 2026) that would restrict labor depreciation, opposed by the insurance industry.

No Maryland statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found; secondary sources note policies typically set their own time limit, and the MIA (Maryland Insurance Administration) directs consumers with questions to their adjuster or the MIA directly rather than to a fixed statutory deadline. On the related scope question, the MIA has proposed (but as of the sources reviewed, not yet finalized) a bulletin titled 'Depreciation of Labor for Claims Settled on an Actual Cash Value Basis,' which the insurance industry (via APCIA) has formally opposed. Insurance Article Section27-304(6) was cited in that debate but does not itself resolve the labor-depreciation question.

Citation: Md. Code, Insurance Article Section27-304(6) (cited in ongoing MIA bulletin debate, not independently dispositive).

Source: https://insurance.maryland.gov/Consumer/Documents/publicnew/PostDisasterClaimsGuide.pdf

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No holdback-timing statute found. This is a live, unresolved regulatory question in Maryland as of the sources reviewed (early-to-mid 2026) -- the proposed MIA bulletin restricting labor depreciation had not been finalized as of this research, so Maryland's ultimate position should be treated as pending, not settled.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, with only narrow, hard-to-prove exceptions

Maryland courts, including the state Board of Contract Appeals, have upheld no-damages-for-delay clauses even against delays caused by owner-initiated scope changes, without recognizing an exception for delays simply beyond the parties' original contemplation. Available exceptions are limited to intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence, or fraud or misrepresentation by the contracting agency; in the case applying this framework, the Board denied a roughly $1,000,000 delay claim because the contractor failed to prove misrepresentation sufficient to invalidate the clause's unambiguous waiver.

Citation: State Highway Admin. v. Greiner Eng'g Sciences, Inc., 83 Md. App. 621, 577 A.2d 363 (1990); In re Allan Myers MD, Inc., MSBCA No. 3143

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-special-appeals/1990/1677-september-term-1989-0.html

The MSBCA decision is an administrative board ruling (Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals), not a published court opinion, and a free, directly-linkable full-text copy wasn't located this pass; that citation is drawn from a secondary summary. Greiner is a Court of Special Appeals decision, not the state's highest court, but is the leading available authority.

Construction contract filing deadline

3 years for a general civil action, including an ordinary written contract

Maryland's general limitations period is 3 years from accrual, applying broadly to a civil action at law unless another Code provision sets a different period. Maryland doesn't extend this period for an ordinary written construction contract, unlike many other states; a longer 12-year period applies only to a 'specialty,' meaning a contract formally executed under seal, which an ordinary construction contract typically is not.

Citation: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (general 3-year period); § 5-102 (12-year period for contracts under seal)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/courts-and-judicial-proceedings/title-5/subtitle-1/section-5-101/

Confirm whether the specific contract at issue was executed under seal (a 'specialty'); if not, the shorter 3-year period applies, which is notably shorter than many neighboring states' written-contract periods.

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New employers pay between 1.0% and 2.6% depending on industry; construction new-employers pay a separate 7.0% default rate until experience-rated. Established employers under Table A (2026, unchanged from 2025) range from 0.30% to 7.50%. Taxable wage base is $8,500, unchanged from 2025.

Maryland assigns new employers a rate between 1.0% and 2.6% based on industry classification. Established (experience-rated) employers are assigned to one of six rate tables (A through F) depending on the state's Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund balance; Table A, the lowest table, is in effect for 2026, with rates spanning 0.30% to 7.50%. The taxable wage base remains $8,500 per employee for 2026, unchanged from 2025.

Citation: Maryland Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance, Tax Rates and Quarterly Reporting

Source: https://labor.maryland.gov/unemployment-insurance/employer-agent/tax-rate.shtml

Last checked: 2026-08-26

CONFIRMED AND EXPANDED: base figures matched the official labor.maryland.gov page exactly. Added the construction-specific 7.0% new-employer rate, confirmed via a secondary source alongside the official page's mention that out-of-state construction contractors get the Maryland construction-industry average rate.

Workers' compensation rating

Maryland is an NCCI state. Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company, Maryland's state fund and largest workers' comp insurer, became a fully affiliated NCCI member effective January 1, 2023, and uses NCCI's rating methodology, experience mod and loss costs.

Maryland is not a monopolistic state and does not run its own independent rating bureau comparable to WCIRB or NYCIRB. Workers' compensation rates are based on NCCI-filed advisory loss costs. Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company (Maryland's competitive state fund, formerly the Injured Workers' Insurance Fund) is a fully affiliated NCCI member as of January 1, 2023 and has adopted NCCI's rating plan, experience modification methodology and loss costs.

Citation: Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company, NCCI Information

Source: https://www.ceiwc.com/policy-and-coverage/ncci-information

Prevailing wage law

Maryland has a state prevailing wage law. It applies to state public works contracts of $500,000 or more (25% or more state funding for school construction projects).

Maryland's Prevailing Wage Law is codified at Md. Code Ann., State Finance and Procurement Sections 17-201 to 17-226, administered by the Maryland Department of Labor's Division of Labor and Industry, Prevailing Wage Unit. The law generally applies to public works contracts valued at $500,000 or more; a lower threshold based on 25% or more state funding applies specifically to school construction projects.

Citation: Md. Code Ann., State Finance and Procurement Section 17-201 et seq.

Source: https://www.labor.maryland.gov/labor/prev/HouseBill727_July12014.pdf

The $500,000 threshold and the 25% school-funding rule were confirmed via a 2014 Maryland General Assembly fiscal note (HB 727) rather than a current Department of Labor page; reconfirm against the live Division of Labor and Industry prevailing wage page since subsequent legislation may have adjusted the figures.

OSHA plan

MOSH: full state plan, private + public sector

Maryland operates MOSH (Maryland Occupational Safety and Health), a full OSHA-approved state plan covering both private and public-sector employers.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; Md. Labor & Empl. Code Title 5

Source: https://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/mosh/workerpage.shtml

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Evidence tied mainly to the intentional-conduct exception, not a general negligence-per-se rule: a willful OSHA violation alone does not establish the deliberate intent needed to pierce exclusivity.

Johnson v. Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., 305 Md. 246, 503 A.2d 708 (1986), is Maryland's high court authority: placing an employee in a dangerous position and willfully violating government safety regulations does not, by itself, constitute the deliberate intent required to escape workers' comp exclusivity. That means an OSHA violation, even a willful one, is relevant primarily as one fact among others bearing on the intentional-act exception, not as a standalone negligence-per-se trigger in an ordinary third-party claim.

Citation: C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268, 22 A.3d 867 (2011).

Source: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2011/77a10.pdf

CORRECTED: replaced the prior citation (Johnson v. Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., 305 Md. 246 (1986), which could not be confirmed as OSHA-related) with C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268 (2011), a directly on-point, confirmed-real Maryland Court of Appeals case excluding expert testimony that OSHA/MOSHA established a statutory duty of care where the defendant subcontractor had left the worksite before the injury.

Third-party contribution against the employer

No statutory-employer shield described; third-party claims involve premises liability, control, notice, negligent undertaking, product defect, and vehicles.

Maryland's contributory-negligence rule is a major cross-cutting defense (any legally contributing worker negligence can bar an ordinary negligence recovery), separate from whether the GC itself can be sued.

Citation: Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §§9-101 et seq.; Mackall v. Zayre Corp., 293 Md. 221 (1982).

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/md-court-of-appeals/1673378.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 bar on direct employer negligence claims under Lab. & Empl. §§9-101 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.

Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §§9-101 et seq. ordinarily bars direct employer negligence claims. The manual doesn't identify a specific exception mechanism; confirm directly.

Citation: Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §§9-101 et seq.; Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 308 Md. 486, 520 A.2d 717 (1987).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-special-appeals/1990/1090-september-term-1989-0.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. Citation corrected (308 Md. 486, not 327 Md. 275). Confirmed real and directly on point (a construction-site death, statutory-employer immunity for a subcontractor performing safety oversight).

Distinctive state doctrine

CORRECTED: replaced the vague 'general dual-capacity case law' placeholder with Maryland's real, construction-specific statutory-employer doctrine, confirmed via a directly on-point ladder-installation case.

Md. Code, Labor & Empl. Section9-509 makes workers-compensation the exclusive remedy, with three recognized exceptions: a deliberate intentional act by the employer (Johnson v. Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., 305 Md. 246 (1986)), an uninsured employer (Cox v. Sandler's Inc., 209 Md. 193 (1956)), or an employer that expressly waives immunity. Distinctively for construction, Maryland deems a general contractor to be the 'statutory employer' of a subcontractor's employees, granting the general contractor exclusivity immunity from tort suits even if it never actually paid workers-comp benefits, so long as it was exposed to that potential liability -- confirmed in Shannon v. KG Industries (unpublished, Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017), where a subcontractor's employee who fell from a negligently installed ladder was barred from suing the general contractor in tort.

Citation: Md. Code, Labor & Empl. Section9-509; Shannon v. KG Industries, LLC, No. 1673 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 18, 2017) (unpublished).

Source: https://www.coseklaw.com/blog/2017/11/maryland-workers-compensation-statutory-employers/

CORRECTED: the prior entry was a vague placeholder ('General Maryland dual-capacity case law reviewed') with no actual citation. Replaced with the real exclusivity statute and a directly on-point, construction-specific statutory-employer case (a ladder-fall subcontractor injury).