Every figure below is the researched rule for Massachusetts, 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.
The rate itself, and the date interest starts running, which differs by claim type in most states.
12% / year, fixed (or the contract's rate)
Accrues from the date of breach or demand, or from the start of the action if no breach/demand date is established. A separate rate applies to actions against the Commonwealth.
Claims against a public/state construction owner use a different provision (§6I); don't use this rate for those.
From the date of breach or demand; if neither is established, from the date the lawsuit was filed
M.G.L. c. 231, § 6C adds interest from the date of the breach or demand, whichever applies to the specific obligation. If that date can't be established, interest instead runs from the date the action was commenced.
Not date of loss: from the date the lawsuit was filed
M.G.L. c. 231, § 6B adds interest on property-damage and other consequential-damages verdicts at 12% per year from the date the action was commenced, not from the date the loss occurred.
Like North Carolina, Massachusetts ties property-damage interest to the filing date rather than the date of loss, so filing promptly directly affects how much interest accrues.
How ACV is determined, whether labor cost can be depreciated, and the rules on releasing withheld recoverable depreciation.
Broad evidence rule
Considers multiple valuation factors (replacement cost less depreciation, market value, etc.) rather than one fixed formula.
Both citations were confirmed against free primary opinion text in a follow-up verification pass; Agoos Leather (the case linked above, decided by the Supreme Judicial Court) is the leading case; O'Connor is a 2008 Appeals Court decision, viewable at https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/court-of-appeals/volumes/73/73massappct205.html.
Massachusetts has a statute permitting an ACV loss-settlement basis tied to fair market value, but it does not address depreciation of labor cost.
Mass. Gen. Laws c. 175 section 99B permits property insurance policies to use a replacement cost loss-settlement clause (like-kind-and-quality or functional replacement/repair cost) or, alternatively, an actual cash value loss-settlement clause. It further allows an ACV calculation to be based on the fair market value of the insured structure, net of land value, without regard to replacement cost less accrued depreciation from physical deterioration and functional and economic obsolescence. The statute does not address whether labor cost specifically may be depreciated.
No Massachusetts case law or Division of Insurance bulletin specifically addressing labor depreciation was located during this research.
Massachusetts statute requires the standard homeowners policy replacement-cost endorsement to allow at least 2 years from the loss for repairs to be completed and the holdback released.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, Section47, clause 17 requires the state-mandated homeowners policy Changes Endorsement to provide that the insurer will not pay replacement cost until the property is actually repaired or replaced, and that repairs must be made within a reasonable time not exceeding 2 years after the loss. Beyond that 2-year outer window, Massachusetts does not mandate depreciation be waived at specific intervals, and disputes recur over whether a 180-day figure sometimes cited by adjusters is enforceable (secondary sources indicate it generally is not, where the statutory 2-year endorsement period controls).
RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). Unlike most states checked this pass, Massachusetts does have a specific statutory requirement here (a mandatory minimum repair window via the required endorsement), though the underlying M.G.L. ch. 175 Section47 text itself was not independently pulled and cited to a primary government source in this pass.
Whether a no-damages-for-delay clause will be enforced against you, and the deadline for bringing a construction contract claim.
Enforceable on public contracts absent arbitrary or capricious conduct, but owner waiver and denied-extension exceptions recognized
Massachusetts appellate courts have upheld no-damages-for-delay clauses on public contracts absent a showing that the delay was caused by arbitrary and capricious conduct by the awarding authority, though in the leading case the court found the awarding authority had waived enforcement of the clause on the specific facts presented. A later Appeals Court decision held courts may decline to enforce the clause where the owner failed to provide contractually-required time extensions, and distinguished ordinary delay damages from a contractor's increased costs caused by a compressed, accelerated schedule.
RESEARCHED from scratch. Central Ceilings v. Suffolk Constr. confirmed real, directly on point, and significant -- distinguishes 'delay damages' (barred) from 'costs incurred to avoid delay' i.e. acceleration/inefficiency costs (not barred), and holds a GC's refusal to grant time extensions can itself be a material breach eliminating the contractor's sole no-damages-for-delay remedy.
6 years for a contract action
Massachusetts sets a 6-year limitations period for contract actions, including an action upon a judgment or decree of a court of record, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim.
The state-specific rates and requirements that sit underneath a fully burdened hourly labor cost.
New-employer rate is 2.42% for most industries, but a separate, higher 6.08% new-employer rate applies specifically to construction employers. Experienced employers range from 0.94% to 5.24% (positive-rated) and 7.03% to 14.37% (negative-rated) under Schedule E, before a COVID-19 recovery assessment that pushes the effective range to about 1.118% to 17.086%. Taxable wage base is $15,000.
Confirmed directly against mass.gov: 2026 new-employer rate is 2.42% for employers registered less than 3 years, but new CONSTRUCTION industry employers specifically pay 6.08% instead, more than double the general rate -- a distinction the prior entry did not capture, and directly relevant to this site's audience. Established employers (3+ years) get an individually calculated rate under Schedule E.
CORRECTED: added the construction-specific 6.08% new-employer rate, confirmed directly against mass.gov, which the prior entry omitted entirely.
Massachusetts runs its own independent rating bureau rather than using NCCI: the Workers' Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts (WCRIBMA).
Massachusetts is not an NCCI state. Workers' compensation rates, classifications and experience rating are filed by the Workers' Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts (WCRIBMA), an independent industry rating bureau, subject to approval by the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance. WCRIBMA also manages the state's assigned-risk (residual) market for employers unable to obtain coverage voluntarily.
Massachusetts has a state prevailing wage law (M.G.L. Chapter 149, Sections 26-27H), applied broadly to public works with no clearly documented statewide dollar minimum.
Massachusetts prevailing wage requirements for public construction are set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Sections 26 through 27H, and administered by the Department of Labor Standards. Unlike many states, Massachusetts does not appear to apply a simple statewide minimum contract dollar threshold before prevailing wage applies to public works.
A specific statewide dollar threshold (if any) was not confirmed from an authoritative Mass.gov source during this research; sources consulted did not state one, and a secondary compilation listed the threshold as 'None.' Confirm directly with the Department of Labor Standards or the statute text before publishing a specific number.
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.
Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA
Massachusetts operates an OSHA-approved state plan covering only public-sector employees. Private construction sites remain under federal OSHA (29 C.F.R. Part 1926 sets the construction safety baseline).
Massachusetts' high court has not directly addressed this, but its intermediate appellate court -- in a scaffolding-collapse case -- allowed expert testimony on OSHA standards as evidence of the standard of care.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court, in an action arising from a scaffolding collapse, allowed the plaintiff to introduce expert testimony regarding OSHA standards as evidence of the applicable standard of care. A later decision clarified this does not extend to cases where the defendant is a homeowner and the plaintiff an independent contractor hired to work at the home.
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.
No statutory-employer shield described; civil claims against non-employers rest on premises defects, control, negligent undertaking, product defect, professional negligence, or vehicles.
Key analytical question is whether the defendant merely had a right to inspect versus actually exercised control, plus possession, notice, and voluntary safety undertakings.
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.
General employer immunity under ch. 152: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152 generally provides employer immunity. The manual doesn't identify a specific exception mechanism for piercing that immunity; confirm directly.
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.
Massachusetts couples ordinary exclusivity (M.G.L. c. 152 Sections23-24) with two distinctive features: a preserved third-party tort track (Section15) governed by the Corsetti 'retained-control' test for general-contractor liability, and a Section28 provision doubling workers-comp benefits for an employer's 'serious and wilful misconduct.'
Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against a direct employer under M.G.L. c. 152 Sections23-24, with an extremely narrow intentional-tort exception limited to genuine deliberate physical assault. Separately, Section15 expressly preserves third-party tort claims against non-employers (property owners, general contractors, other subcontractors, equipment manufacturers), which can proceed concurrently with a workers-comp claim. Corsetti v. Stone Co., 396 Mass. 1 (1985) -- arising from a construction worker's 40-foot scaffolding fall -- established that a general contractor owes a duty to a subcontractor's employees if it retained the right to control the work in any aspect, including initiating and maintaining safety programs (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts Section414), and remains the SJC's controlling standard today. Distinctively, Section28 doubles workers-comp benefits when an injury is caused by the employer's 'serious and wilful misconduct' or that of a person entrusted with superintendence -- a near-criminal standard, but a real and occasionally successful claim.
RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank/null). Corsetti confirmed real, foundational, and still actively cited (including in 2020-2026 sources) -- the controlling GC-liability standard for Massachusetts construction cases.
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.
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.