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.
Agoos Leather is the Supreme Judicial Court's leading decision and is the one linked above. O'Connor is a 2008 Appeals Court decision at 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 decision or Division of Insurance bulletin addresses labor depreciation.
Massachusetts sets a two-year outer window: replacement cost coverage turns on repairs being made within two years of the loss, or longer if the insurer agrees.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 47, Seventeenth authorises insurers to cover the difference between the actual value of the property at the time of loss and the cost of repairing, rebuilding or replacing it with new materials of like size, kind and quality, provided the work is done within the commonwealth within not exceeding two years from the date of loss, or such further time as the insurer and the insured agree. That is the outer window for recovering withheld depreciation. Massachusetts does not otherwise require depreciation to be released at set intervals. Adjusters sometimes cite a 180-day figure, which comes from the policy rather than the statute.
The two-year period can be extended by agreement between the insurer and the insured, so ask for an extension in writing before it runs rather than after.
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.
Central Ceilings v. Suffolk Construction is the one to read on a construction claim. It separates delay damages, which the clause bars, from the cost of accelerating to avoid delay, which it does not and holds that a general contractor's refusal to grant time extensions can be a material breach that removes the clause as the subcontractor's only 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. 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.
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.
New employers registered less than three years pay 2.42%, but new construction employers pay 6.08%, more than double. Established employers of three years or more receive an individually calculated rate under Schedule E.
Use the 6.08% construction figure on a construction payroll. The effective range for experienced employers includes a COVID-19 recovery assessment on top of the Schedule E rate.
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 M.G.L. c. 149, §§ 26 to 27H and administered by the Department of Labor Standards. Massachusetts does not appear to set a statewide minimum contract value before prevailing wage applies to public works.
Published compilations list the Massachusetts threshold as none. Confirm with the Department of Labor Standards before relying on a specific dollar figure.
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.
Modified comparative fault, recovery barred above 50% fault (51% bar)
Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is more than 50% at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault still recovers half.
Massachusetts compares the worker against the defendants aggregated and bars only where the worker's share is greater. An even split recovers.
The defendant bears the burden of proving comparative negligence, not the worker. The Superior Court's model jury instructions state it twice over: 'The defendant, rather than the plaintiff, has the burden of proving the defense' and must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. New Hampshire puts the same allocation in its statute; most states leave it to be inferred.
One practical point from the same instructions: whether the jury is told that a finding of greater negligence on the worker's part means a verdict for the defendant is within the trial judge's discretion. A jury may be assigning the percentages without being told what the 51% line does.
No general cap on non-economic damages
Most states cap non-economic damages only in medical malpractice actions, which does not reach a third-party construction claim. Economic losses, medical bills, lost wages, future earning capacity, are not capped by these statutes.
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). That split decides where the file lives. A private construction site is inspected by a federal OSHA area office, with any citation contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. A public employer on the same kind of work answers to the state plan instead, before the state's own review body. Reporting deadlines are the same either way: 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.
OSHA standards come in as evidence of the standard of care through expert testimony. The Supreme Judicial Court has not ruled on the question.
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.
No statutory-employer shield. Claims against a non-employer rest on premises defects, retained control, negligent undertaking, product defect, professional negligence or vehicles.
The central question is whether the defendant merely had a right to inspect or actually exercised control, together with possession, notice and any voluntary safety undertaking. See the distinctive doctrine entry below for the Corsetti standard.
General employer immunity under ch. 152, with an extremely narrow intentional-tort exception
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152 gives the employer immunity. The intentional-tort exception is limited to genuine deliberate assault and § 28 doubles benefits for serious and wilful misconduct rather than opening a tort claim. See the distinctive doctrine entry below. 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.
Massachusetts couples ordinary exclusivity (M.G.L. c. 152 §§ 23-24) with two distinctive features: a preserved third-party tort track (§ 15) governed by the Corsetti 'retained-control' test for general-contractor liability and a § 28 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 §§ 23-24, with an extremely narrow intentional-tort exception limited to genuine deliberate physical assault. Separately, § 15 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), which arose 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 § 414) and remains the SJC's controlling standard today. Distinctively, § 28 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. That is a near-criminal standard, but a real and occasionally successful claim.
ClaimDuke's calculators compute delay and extended overhead (Eichleay), fully burdened labor rates, ACV/RCV property loss, claim 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.
