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

The correct Maryland Reports citation is 195 Md. 639 (1950). No free full text copy of this 1950 opinion is available online, so a law library or paid database is needed for the primary text.

ACV statute or regulation

Maryland has no statute or regulation restricting labor depreciation. A 2025 bulletin was proposed but never adopted. 2026 legislation did not pass.

In April 2025 the Maryland Insurance Administration circulated a proposed bulletin, Depreciation of Labor for Claims Settled on an Actual Cash Value Basis, which would treat depreciating labor as an unfair claim settlement practice and require insurers to remove policy language permitting it. Industry commenters opposed it and it was never adopted. In the 2026 session the legislature took up House Bill 283 with a Senate companion, Senate Bill 52, which would have stated that labor necessary to repair, rebuild or replace damaged property is not a component of physical depreciation, with a proposed effective date of October 1, 2026. Neither bill appears among the insurance laws the Insurance Administration lists as enacted in 2026, so Maryland law on the point is unchanged.

Citation: Proposed MIA Bulletin, Depreciation of Labor for Claims Settled on an Actual Cash Value Basis (April 2025, not adopted); Maryland HB 283 and SB 52 (2026 session, not enacted)

Source: https://insurance.maryland.gov/Pages/Bulletins/Bulletin-26-14.aspx

The Insurance Administration's Bulletin 26-14 (June 12, 2026) summarises the insurance laws enacted in the 2026 session. The labor depreciation bill is not among them. Watch the Administration's bulletins page in case the proposed bulletin is adopted later.

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 governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the Insurance Administration proposed a bulletin restricting labor depreciation in 2025 that was never adopted and 2026 legislation on the same question did not pass. See the ACV statute entry above. 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: Md. Code, Insurance Article § 27-304(6) (cited in ongoing MIA bulletin debate, not independently dispositive).

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

“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

Greiner is a Court of Special Appeals decision rather than the state's highest court and the Allan Myers decision is an administrative ruling of the Board of Contract Appeals. Both are cited from summaries rather than full text.

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. 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: 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

Construction new employers pay the 7.0% default rate rather than the 1.0% to 2.6% industry range, so use the construction figure on a construction payroll. Out-of-state construction contractors are assigned 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 come from a 2014 fiscal note. Reconfirm them on the Division of Labor and Industry's prevailing wage page, since later legislation may have adjusted the figures.

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Pure contributory negligence, any fault bars recovery entirely

Any fault attributable to the injured worker, even 1%, defeats the claim. This is the harshest of the four systems and only a handful of jurisdictions still apply it.

Citation: Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013); Harrison v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442 (1983); Irwin v. Sprigg, 6 Gill 200 (Md. 1847)

Source: https://www.courts.state.md.us/

Verified against: the holding of Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia as reported across multiple contemporaneous accounts of the decision

Non-economic damages cap

Non-economic damages capped at $965,000

$965,000 for causes of action arising 1 Oct 2025 to 30 Sep 2026; increases $15,000 each 1 October. Wrongful death with two or more beneficiaries is 150% of the cap ($1,447,500). The operative date is when the cause of action AROSE, not when suit was filed. Medical malpractice is capped separately and lower.

Citation: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108

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. A state plan must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may set stricter standards, so check the state rule before assuming the federal text applies. It also covers state and local government employees, which federal OSHA does not, so a public works injury is inside the state agency's jurisdiction. Citations are issued by the state agency and contested before the state's own review body rather than the federal commission, which changes where the file lives when you go looking for it. Reporting deadlines follow the federal rule: 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; 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

An OSHA violation is not a standalone negligence per se trigger in Maryland and even a willful violation does not by itself show the deliberate intent needed to pierce exclusivity.

In C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub the Court of Appeals excluded expert testimony that OSHA and MOSHA established a statutory duty of care where the defendant subcontractor had left the worksite before the injury. Maryland's high court has also held that 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' compensation exclusivity.

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

Third-party contribution against the employer

Third-party claims turn on premises liability, control, notice, negligent undertaking, product defect and vehicles. Maryland's contributory-negligence rule is a major cross-cutting defense.

Any legally contributing negligence by the worker can bar an ordinary negligence recovery, which is separate from whether the general contractor can be sued at all. On that question see the distinctive doctrine entry below, since Maryland treats a general contractor as the statutory employer of a subcontractor's employees.

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

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Direct employer negligence claims are barred under Lab. & Empl. §§ 9-101 et seq. The recognised exceptions are set out in the distinctive doctrine entry below.

Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §§ 9-101 et seq. bar direct employer negligence claims. Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. involved a construction site death and statutory employer immunity for a subcontractor performing safety oversight. 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: 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

Distinctive state doctrine

A general contractor is the statutory employer of a subcontractor's employees and is immune even if it never paid benefits, provided it was exposed to that liability

Md. Code, Labor & Empl. § 9-509 makes workers' compensation the exclusive remedy, with three recognised exceptions: a deliberate intentional act by the employer, an uninsured employer or an employer that expressly waives immunity. For construction, Maryland deems a general contractor the statutory employer of a subcontractor's employees, which gives the general contractor exclusivity immunity from tort suits even where it never actually paid benefits, so long as it was exposed to that potential liability. In Shannon v. KG Industries, an unpublished 2017 Court of Special Appeals decision, a subcontractor's employee who fell from a negligently installed ladder was barred from suing the general contractor.

Citation: Md. Code, Labor & Empl. § 9-509; 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/

Shannon is unpublished, so it is persuasive rather than binding. The statutory employer rule it applies is long established in Maryland.