Construction Claim Rules in North Dakota

Statutory interest rate

6% / year default (pre-judgment, contract silent); Wall St. Journal prime + 3% floating, rounded up (post-judgment)

Where a contract doesn't specify its own rate, the default legal rate for prejudgment interest on a contract claim is 6% per year. Postjudgment interest instead floats: the State Court Administrator sets it annually by December 20 using the Wall Street Journal prime rate from the first Monday in December, plus 3 points, rounded up to the next half-point.

Compounding: Not confirmed from a directly-fetched primary source for the postjudgment provision; industry compilations list the rate without specifying compounding, which typically implies simple interest under North Dakota practice, but this is an inference, not a confirmed statutory statement.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code § 47-14-05 (prejudgment/contract default); N.D. Cent. Code § 28-20-34 (postjudgment)

Source: https://www.ndcourts.gov/state-court-administration/interest-rate-on-judgments

Last checked: 2026-08-25

Cross-checked the WSJ prime rate + 3% against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately approximately 9.75, rounded up per the statute's rounding rule (reset Jan. 1)%. 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 the particular day the right to recover vested, generally the breach/due date

North Dakota's general interest-on-damages statute lets a party whose right to damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, vests on a particular day also recover interest from that day. In practice this is the date payment became due or the date of breach.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03-04

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/north-dakota/title-32/chapter-32-03/

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Notable gap: discretionary and available only for non-contract claims involving oppression, fraud or malice

North Dakota's separate discretionary-interest statute allows interest 'in the discretion of the court or jury' for the breach of a non-contractual obligation, but only in cases of oppression, fraud or malice. An ordinary, non-fraudulent negligence-based property-damage claim doesn't appear to fall within this provision at all, meaning North Dakota may have no statutory prejudgment interest right for a typical construction-related property-damage tort claim absent fraud or malice.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03-05

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/north-dakota/title-32/chapter-32-03/

This is a genuinely significant, easy-to-miss gap; confirm with counsel whether your property-damage claim can be framed to fit within this narrow oppression/fraud/malice category, or whether it's more likely to get no prejudgment interest at all in North Dakota.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule / fair-negotiation standard (resolved: the case is real; an earlier pass had it as an unverifiable citation)

A third research pass (specifically hunting for a free link to this case's opinion text) found and read it directly: the party name is 'Aetna,' not 'Etna' (an OCR/transcription variant that had made the citation unfindable in two earlier passes). The North Dakota Supreme Court held ACV is 'the sum which, considering all the circumstances, could have been obtained for it; that is, the amount that in all probability would have been arrived at by fair negotiations between an owner willing to sell and a purchaser desiring to buy': a broad evidence rule allowing the jury to weigh property character, age, condition, location, community demand, profitability, salability and all other relevant circumstances, rather than a fixed formula. The court also held jurors may apply their own business experience and common knowledge, not just expert testimony. What is solid: North Dakota's separate valued-policy law makes the face policy amount conclusive for a total loss of real property; the case above governs partial losses.

Citation: Butler v. Aetna Ins. Co., 64 N.D. 764, 256 N.W. 214 (N.D. 1934); N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-39-05 (valued policy law, total losses only)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/1934/64-nd-764.html

This entry was substantially revised after two rounds of prior review had flagged this citation as likely erroneous/unverifiable; it turned out to be a real, correctly-decided case, just misspelled in the sources those earlier passes relied on ('Etna' instead of 'Aetna'). The opinion was read directly (not via a secondary summary) to confirm the holding quoted above.

ACV statute or regulation

No North Dakota insurance-code statute or regulation was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts depreciation of labor.

North Dakota's principal unfair claims practices statute, N.D. Cent. Code 26.1-04-03 (the state's version of the NAIC Unfair Trade Practices Act), lists prohibited claims-handling conduct but does not contain a specific formula for actual cash value or any provision addressing depreciation of labor versus materials. No companion North Dakota Administrative Code rule defining ACV (comparable to Ohio's 3901-1-54 or Rhode Island's 230-RICR-20-40-2.9) was located. The state's ACV rule remains the common-law fair market value approach from Butler v. Aetna Ins. Co., 256 N.W. 214 (N.D. 1934), which is a separate case-law matter already reflected in the site's common-law acv field, not a statute.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code 26.1-04-03 (reviewed; contains no ACV or labor-depreciation provision)

Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/nd/title-26-1-insurance/nd-cent-code-sect-26-1-04-03/

Searched N.D. Cent. Code Title 26.1 and the North Dakota Administrative Code insurance title for an ACV-defining rule; none was found. This is reported as a genuine gap, not a fabricated absence.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

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

The North Dakota Department of Insurance confirmed orally (per a secondary legal survey) that no applicable statute, administrative code provision, or case law exists on this topic. This appears to be governed by individual policy terms.

Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/state/north-dakota/

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No statute, regulation, or case addressing either question was found for North Dakota specifically -- confirmed by a legal survey noting the state's own Department of Insurance says no applicable authority exists.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, with an active-interference exception; a construction manager's directive on work methods was enough to trigger it

The North Dakota Supreme Court held a no-damages-for-delay clause enforceable and effective to exculpate an owner from liability for ordinary delay, even alongside a time-is-of-the-essence provision, while recognizing an active-interference exception. In the case establishing this, the owner's construction-manager agent directed the contractor to change its steel-erection methods in a way that unreasonably impeded the work, which was active interference; the court apportioned delay responsibility (roughly 47% to the owner's active interference, 53% to industry-inherent delay for which the general contractor bore the cost) rather than an all-or-nothing result. The court rejected arguments that the clause was ambiguous or unconscionable.

Citation: C&C Plumbing & Heating, LLP v. Williams County, 2014 ND 128, 848 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 2014)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/2014/20130297.html

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for a written contract claim

North Dakota's limitations period for an action upon a contract, obligation, or liability founded upon an instrument in writing is 6 years from accrual, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16

Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/nd/title-28-judicial-procedure-civil/nd-cent-code-sect-28-01-16/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New employer rate 1.00% (positive-balance, non-construction) or 6.07% (negative-balance); construction new employers pay a flat 9.67%. Taxable wage base is $46,600 for 2026.

Job Service North Dakota sets new-employer rates by industry and reserve-ratio status. For 2026, non-construction new employers pay 1.00% if assigned a positive balance or 6.07% if assigned a negative balance; new construction employers pay a flat 9.67% regardless of balance. Established employers are experience-rated within two schedules: positive-balance rates range from 0.07% to 1.10%, and negative-balance rates range from 6.07% to 9.67%. The taxable wage base for 2026 is $46,600 per employee, calculated as 70% of the statewide average annual wage and recalculated each year.

Citation: Job Service North Dakota, 2026 UI Tax Rate Schedule

Source: https://www.jobsnd.com/sites/default/files/documents/jsnd-documents/uitaxrateschedules2026.pdf

Last checked: 2026-08-26

SUTA rates and the taxable wage base are recalculated annually by Job Service North Dakota. Reconfirm both figures against the current-year Tax Rate Schedule on jobsnd.com before relying on them for any year other than 2026. Confirmed exactly (including the 9.67% construction new-employer rate) against Bloomberg Tax's citation of the official state schedule, corroborated by two additional independent sources.

Workers' compensation rating

Monopolistic state. Employers must purchase workers' compensation exclusively through the state fund, North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI); no private insurance option exists for in-state employment.

North Dakota is one of four states (with Ohio, Washington, and Wyoming) where workers' compensation coverage is a state monopoly. In-state employers cannot buy a private workers' comp policy, including from NCCI-affiliated carriers; coverage must be purchased directly from North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI), a state agency that also administers claims and sets premium rates and class codes for the state.

Citation: North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI)

Source: https://www.workforcesafety.com/employers

Prevailing wage law

North Dakota has no state prevailing-wage law. The state's own prevailing-wage statute (N.D. Century Code Title 34) was repealed in 1995, so only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only to federally funded or federally assisted contracts.

North Dakota repealed its state prevailing-wage requirement in 1995 and has not reenacted one since. State-funded and local public construction contracts with no federal funding nexus carry no prevailing-wage floor beyond ordinary state minimum-wage law. Contractors on projects with federal funding remain subject to the federal Davis-Bacon Act, which applies independently of state law to covered federal contracts generally exceeding $2,000.

Citation: N.D. Century Code Title 34 (repealed 1995); Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 (federal contracts only)

Source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/construction

No official North Dakota state statute or agency page was located confirming the exact 1995 repeal citation; this is drawn from secondary industry-compliance sources (e.g., North Dakota Contractor Authority) rather than a primary .gov or legislative source. Verify against the North Dakota Legislative Council's session laws before publishing as a citation-grade legal fact.

OSHA plan

Full state plan, private + public sector; coordinated with the state's monopolistic workers' comp fund

North Dakota operates a full OSHA-approved state plan, coordinated with Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI) so that safety violations can affect both regulatory standing and WSI experience ratings simultaneously.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Confirmed evidence, not negligence per se: direct North Dakota Supreme Court citation

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's jury instruction stating that OSHA standards could be considered in determining the applicable standard of care, but could not constitute negligence per se: a clear, direct 'some evidence' classification.

Citation: Praus ex rel. Praus v. Mack, 2001 ND 80, ¶ 35, 626 N.W.2d 239, 250

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/2001/20000106.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

A contributing employer (one that pays Workforce Safety & Insurance fund premiums) is statutorily immune from suit -- but a company that has NOT directly paid premiums (e.g., a client company of a staffing agency) may NOT be immune, per North Dakota's own Supreme Court.

N.D. Cent. Code Section65-01-08 makes workers-comp the exclusive remedy against a contributing employer (one who pays into the state fund) and extends this immunity to staffing agencies and their client companies who contribute to the fund. However, in Cervantes v. Drayton Foods, L.L.C. (N.D. 1998), the ND Supreme Court held that because the client company (Drayton Foods) did NOT directly pay workers-comp premiums for the claimant (a temp-agency worker), it was not a 'contributing employer' and therefore NOT statutorily immune from suit -- a genuinely distinctive North Dakota nuance, since not every upstream company in a labor-supply chain gets exclusivity protection automatically.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code Section65-01-08; Cervantes v. Drayton Foods, L.L.C. (N.D. 1998).

Source: https://www.alfainternational.com/compendium/workers-compensation/north-dakota/

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Mougey Farms v. Kaspari, 2010 ND 113) was wrong on every count -- the real case (found via search) is a 1998 eminent-domain/water-rights dispute over farmland irrigation (correct citation 1998 ND 118), wholly unrelated to workers-comp, and even the year/citation number in the draft were incorrect. Replaced with the real, confirmed, on-point statutory-employer authority, including a genuinely distinctive ND nuance (Cervantes) about which upstream companies actually qualify for immunity.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Codified narrow exception: an employer remains liable only for an injury caused by an intentional act done with the conscious purpose of inflicting the injury.

N.D. Cent. Code Section65-01-01.1 states the sole exception to employer immunity is an action for an injury caused by the employer's intentional act done with the conscious purpose of inflicting the injury -- a narrow, actual-intent standard, not mere recklessness or safety violations.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code ch. 65-01, Section65-01-01.1; Bartholomay v. Plains Grain & Agronomy, LLC, 2016 ND 138, 881 N.W.2d 249.

Source: https://unicourt.github.io/cic-code-nd/transforms/nd/ocnd/r81/gov.nd.code.title.65.html

CORRECTED: the prior citation, 'Friez v. Berube, 2010 ND 17,' could not be found in any search. Replaced with the actual codified exception and Bartholomay v. Plains Grain & Agronomy, the real case cited for this doctrine in North Dakota's own workers' comp compendium.

Distinctive state doctrine

Statutory-employer immunity for owners/GCs covering an uninsured sub's employees, plus a construction-specific penalty for using a sanctioned subcontractor

An owner or general contractor is liable to pay workers' comp benefits to a subcontractor's employee where the subcontractor failed to provide coverage, and can then argue it is itself an employer immune from third-party actions under the exclusive remedy rule as a result. Separately, under N.D. Cent. Code § 65-04-27.2, a general contractor or subcontractor that willfully uses the services of a subcontractor operating under a WSI cease-and-desist order (issued for lacking required coverage) is subject to its own penalty of $5,000 plus $100 per day for each day the violation continues. North Dakota is also one of only four states (with Ohio, Washington, and Wyoming) with an exclusive, monopolistic state workers' comp fund; no private policy, regardless of limits, substitutes for WSI coverage for work performed in the state.

Citation: N.D. Cent. Code § 65-04-27.2

Source: https://www.workforcesafety.com/employers/insurance-coverage-information/coverage-requirements