Construction Claim Rules in Oklahoma

Statutory interest rate

6% / year simple (pre-judgment, contract claims); Wall St. Journal prime + 2% floating (post-judgment)

Prejudgment interest on a contract/construction claim runs under the general 'right to interest on damages capable of being made certain' statute, at the default legal rate of 6% per year unless the contract specifies its own rate, accruing from the date the amount became certain or ascertainable (which can be the date of a demand with supporting figures, not necessarily the date of breach). Postjudgment interest on any judgment, including contract judgments, floats instead: the Wall Street Journal prime rate published each January, plus 2 points, certified annually by the State Treasurer.

Compounding: Simple

Citation: 23 O.S. § 6 (prejudgment, with rate from 15 O.S. § 266); 12 O.S. § 727.1(A) (postjudgment)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-23/section-23-6/

Last checked: 2026-08-25

12 O.S. § 727.1 is the right postjudgment citation for a contract judgment, but its prejudgment subsections cover personal injury verdicts only, so do not use it as the prejudgment basis on a contract claim. The postjudgment rate is certified annually by the State Treasurer from the January prime rate plus two points, so pull the current figure.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From the particular day the right to recover vested, generally the breach/due date

Oklahoma's general interest-upon-damages statute (23 O.S. § 6) covers any damages that are certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, where the right to recover vests on a particular day; interest runs from that day. For a construction contract debt, this is generally the date payment was due or the date of breach.

Citation: 23 O.S. § 6

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-23/section-23-6/

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same statute and test as contract claims: not limited to contract disputes

23 O.S. § 6 isn't limited to contract claims; its 'certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation' language applies broadly, so a property-damage claim with an ascertainable repair cost can use the same rule, running interest from the date that right vested, in practice the date of loss.

Citation: 23 O.S. § 6

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-23/section-23-6/

The statute's wording is not limited by claim type, which supports applying it to property damage. No case squarely applying it to a construction property damage claim was identified.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule (labor may be depreciated as part of an integrated product)

The Oklahoma Supreme Court holds ACV is determined by the broad evidence rule, considering all relevant factors (purchase price, replacement cost, age, condition, market value) rather than a rigid formula. The same opinion holds labor costs, not just materials, may be depreciated as part of an integrated product.

Citation: Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2002 OK 15, 55 P.3d 1017 (Okla. 2002)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ok-supreme-court/1373182.html

ACV statute or regulation

No Oklahoma statute or Insurance Department rule defines an ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. The rule permitting it comes from case law.

The Oklahoma Administrative Code claims-practices rules at OAC 365:15-3 (Claims Resolution and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices) were reviewed and contain purpose, definitions and minimum performance standards provisions, but no section defining actual cash value or addressing depreciation of labor was located. Recent OID bulletins reviewed, including Bulletin No. 2025-07, address unrelated 2025 legislative changes (post-loss assignment of benefits, public adjuster commission caps and vehicle storage rate caps) and do not touch ACV or labor depreciation. Oklahoma's rule on labor depreciation is instead case law: in Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 55 P.3d 1017 (Okla. 2002), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that labor may be depreciated as part of an ACV calculation under the broad evidence rule. That is common-law precedent, not a statute restricting or banning labor depreciation. It actually permits rather than restricts the practice.

Citation: OAC 365:15-3 (reviewed; no ACV or labor-depreciation provision found); Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 55 P.3d 1017 (Okla. 2002) (case law, not statute)

Source: https://www.oid.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/020118_Rule-Text-Ch-15.pdf

Oklahoma's rule permits labor depreciation rather than restricting it, which is the opposite of what a reader may expect from states with a bulletin on the subject.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Oklahoma statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Oklahoma permits depreciating labor as part of ACV.

No Oklahoma statute or regulation governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Redcorn that labor costs may be depreciated in determining ACV. 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: Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 55 P.3d 1017, 1021 (Okla. 2002); Branch v. Farmers Ins. Co., 55 P.3d 1023, 1027 (Okla. 2002).

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

The labor depreciation holdings are taken from a 2025 practitioner survey rather than the opinions.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, with an exception for inequitable conduct by the party invoking the clause

A federal court applying Oklahoma law held a no-damages-for-delay clause enforceable except where the party seeking to enforce it engaged in inequitable conduct. Oklahoma's own state courts have not squarely addressed the question.

Citation: United States ex rel. M.L. Young Constr. Corp. v. The Austin Co. (federal case applying Oklahoma law)

Source: https://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

Construction contract filing deadline

5 years for a written contract, agreement, or promise

Oklahoma's limitations period for an action upon a contract, agreement, or promise in writing is 5 years from accrual, 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.

Citation: 12 O.S. § 95(A)(1)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2014/title-12/section-12-95

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New employer rate 1.5%. Experienced employers range from 0.2% to 5.8%. Taxable wage base is $25,000 for 2026, down from $28,200 in 2025.

The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) set the 2026 new-employer unemployment insurance tax rate at 1.5%, unchanged from 2025. The range for experience-rated employers narrowed for 2026 to 0.2% through 5.8%, down from 0.3% through 9.2% in 2025. The taxable wage base decreased for 2026 to $25,000 per employee, down from $28,200 the prior year.

Citation: Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC), 2026 unemployment insurance rate announcement

Source: https://oklahoma.gov/oesc/employers/tax/contribution-rates.html

Last checked: 2026-08-26

The 2026 figures come from reporting on the Employment Security Commission's announcement rather than a live rate table. Reconfirm on the Commission's contribution rates page before relying on them.

Workers' compensation rating

Competitive state using NCCI advisory rates and class codes. Employers may buy coverage from any licensed private carrier, including CompSource Mutual Insurance Company, Oklahoma's former state fund which now competes with private insurers.

Oklahoma is an NCCI state; workers' compensation class codes and advisory loss costs are filed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and used as the rating basis by carriers writing in the state. Oklahoma is not monopolistic: employers may purchase coverage from any authorized private insurer. CompSource Mutual Insurance Company, formerly the state's exclusive fund, now operates as a competitive nonprofit mutual insurer alongside private carriers.

Citation: National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), Oklahoma state rate filings

Source: https://www.ncci.com/

Prevailing wage law

Oklahoma has no enforceable state prevailing-wage law. Its prevailing-wage statute was struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1995 as an unconstitutional delegation of authority and has not been reenacted.

In City of Oklahoma City v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Labor (Okla. 1995), the Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated the state's prevailing-wage statute, holding that it unconstitutionally delegated wage-setting authority to a federal agency without adequate standards or a state forum to challenge federal wage determinations. The court found the remainder of the statute could not function without that provision, so the entire law was struck down. Oklahoma has not reenacted a prevailing-wage law since, so only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies and only to federally funded contracts.

Citation: City of Oklahoma City v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor, 1995 OK 107

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1995/4221-1.html

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

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.

Citation: Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 13 (bar); § 14 (proportional reduction)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-23/section-23-13/

Verified against: statute text of Okla. Stat. tit. 23, s 13

Non-economic damages cap

No cap, the enacted limit was held unconstitutional

The $350,000 non-economic damages cap was held unconstitutional.

Citation: Beason v. I.E. Miller Servs., Inc., 2019 OK 28

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Oklahoma has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under federal jurisdiction the citation is issued by an OSHA area office and contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Federal OSHA does not cover state and local government employees, so a public employee injured on a public job falls outside it. Reporting deadlines are 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 (State Plan roster)

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Oklahoma draws a construction-specific line: off a multi-employer construction site an OSHA violation does not support negligence per se against a non-employer, but the court endorsed the multi-employer doctrine that would support it on such a site.

Norton v. Spring Operating Co., 2020 OK CIV APP 18: the court held that even assuming an OSHA violation occurred, it was not a basis for negligence per se because the plaintiff (an oil-purchasing company's driver on a routine collection visit) was not in the class of persons § 654(a)(2) protects, since that case was NOT a multi-employer construction worksite. Critically, the court explained its reasoning depended on this distinction, favorably citing the 10th Circuit's Universal Construction v. OSHRC, 182 F.3d 726 (10th Cir. 1999), which held the multi-employer doctrine is "particularly applicable to multi-employer construction worksites" and imposes liability on a controlling employer "regardless of whether it created the hazard or whether its employees were exposed to the hazard." The court also favorably cited Teal v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 728 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1984) and Arrington v. Arrington Bros. Constr., Inc., 781 P.2d 224 (Idaho 1989), both of which found negligence per se appropriate specifically where the injured worker was employed by an independent contractor or subcontractor on a multi-contractor construction site.

Citation: Norton v. Spring Operating Co., 2020 OK CIV APP 18; Universal Construction Co. v. OSHRC, 182 F.3d 726 (10th Cir. 1999) (cited favorably).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/court-of-appeals-civil/2019/116886.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

85A O.S. § 5(A) explicitly extends exclusive-remedy immunity to a 'prime contractor' of the employer and provides that no separate role or persona (other than employer) is relevant for immunity purposes, directly barring third-party contribution against an immune prime contractor.

Under 85A O.S. § 5(A), workers-comp is the exclusive remedy not just against the direct employer but against 'any principal, officer, director, employee, stockholder, partner, or prime contractor of the employer,' and the statute specifies that no other role, capacity, or persona is relevant for immunity purposes, regardless of the multiple roles an employer may hold. This directly forecloses third-party contribution claims against an employer or prime contractor covered by the Act.

Citation: 85A Okla. Stat. § 5(A).

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-85a/section-85a-5/

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Exclusivity has a statutory intentional-tort exception requiring a deliberate, specific intent to injure

Okla. Stat. tit. 85A makes compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer. The intentional-tort exception in § 5(B)(2) requires willful, deliberate and specific intent to injure. Oklahoma rejects the substantial certainty standard other states use. 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: Okla. Stat. tit. 85A; Parret v. UNICCO Service Co., 2005 OK 54, 127 P.3d 572.

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2005/443799.html

Distinctive state doctrine

Design professionals get explicit statutory immunity for on-site services, with negligent design carved out

85A O.S. § 5(H) provides that for the purpose of extending the immunity of that section, an architect, professional engineer or land surveyor is deemed an intermediate or principal employer for services performed at or on the site of a construction project, but that the immunity does not extend to the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications. On-site services such as site visits and construction observation are protected; the design work itself is not. Separately, the intentional-tort exception in § 5(B)(2) requires willful, deliberate and specific intent to injure rather than substantial certainty. Oklahoma uses modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar.

Citation: 85A Okla. Stat. § 5(H) (design professional immunity); 85A Okla. Stat. § 5(B)(2) (intentional-tort exception)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-85a/section-85a-5/