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

A commonly-cited statute, 12 O.S. § 727.1, is the correct postjudgment cite for a contract judgment, but its prejudgment-interest subsections are limited to personal-injury verdicts and do NOT apply to ordinary contract claims; don't use it as the prejudgment basis here. A separate cite sometimes seen, 15 O.S. § 583, could not be located in the current Oklahoma Statutes at all. Cross-checked the WSJ prime rate + 2% against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately 8.75 postjudgment; 6% predjudgment%. 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

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 broad, claim-type-neutral wording supports applying it to property damage, but this pass didn't locate a case squarely confirming that application to a construction property-damage claim specifically.

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 Oklahoma Insurance Department (OID) regulation was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation.

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, and 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

No OID bulletin or admin code provision restricting labor depreciation in Oklahoma could be located after searching OID's bulletin index and the full Chapter 15 rule text; only the older Redcorn case, which permits labor depreciation, was found. Reporting this honestly rather than assuming a restricting statute exists.

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 specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held labor costs may be depreciated in determining ACV.

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/

RESEARCHED from scratch. No holdback-timing statute found; the labor-depreciation holdings are from a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey, not independently re-verified against the primary opinions in this pass.

“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; a legal-industry 50-state survey lists Oklahoma's own state courts as not having squarely addressed the issue.

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

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive 50-state matrix (Woods Aitken LLP) specifically on no-damage-for-delay clause enforceability, covering all 50 states with primary citations. Confirmed via independent survey -- exact same citation as the existing draft.

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.

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 were confirmed through a Bloomberg Tax summary of OESC's announcement rather than by directly reading a live OESC rate table, since the OESC contribution-rates page did not return the specific numeric table on fetch. Reconfirm directly on oklahoma.gov/oesc before publishing. Confirmed exactly against Bloomberg Tax's citation of the official OESC release and corroborated by EY Tax News' coverage of the same S.B. 911 reforms.

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

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Oklahoma has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction.

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: outside a multi-employer construction worksite, an OSHA violation is NOT a basis for negligence per se against a non-employer defendant. But the same court affirmatively endorsed the 10th Circuit's multi-employer doctrine as the framework that WOULD support negligence per se on an actual multi-employer construction site under 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2).

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

VERIFIED with a real, on-point Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals holding -- more favorable and precise for construction-site claims specifically than a flat "evidence of negligence, per se rejected" characterization would suggest. The multi-employer construction distinction is the operative rule, not a blanket rejection.

Third-party contribution against the employer

85A O.S. Section5(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. Section5(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. Section5(A).

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

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Hutchison v. KFC Corp., 1995 OK 80) is FABRICATED/wrong-topic -- extensive search confirms the only cases matching that party name and year are Hutchison v. KFC Corp., 809 F. Supp. 68 (D. Nev. 1992) and 51 F.3d 280 (9th Cir. 1995), both Nevada federal trade-secret disputes over a fried-chicken recipe, wholly unrelated to Oklahoma or workers-comp. No Oklahoma Supreme Court case with this citation number exists on this topic. Replaced with the real, confirmed, directly on-point Oklahoma statute.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Exclusivity has a statutory intentional-tort exception.

Okla. Stat. tit. 85A generally makes compensation exclusive against the employer, with an intentional-tort exception.

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

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.

Distinctive state doctrine

A sixth state confirmed with an explicit design-professional immunity provision, written directly into the exclusivity statute

85A O.S. § 5(H) provides: 'For the purpose of extending the immunity of this section, any architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor shall be deemed an intermediate or principal employer for services performed at or on the site of a construction project, but this immunity shall not extend to the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications.' This makes Oklahoma the sixth state confirmed with an explicit design-professional liability provision, after Georgia, Missouri, Connecticut, Alaska, and Tennessee; protecting a design professional's on-site services (e.g., site visits, construction observation) while carving out negligent design work itself, similar in structure to Georgia and Missouri's model. Oklahoma uses modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar (barred from recovery only if 50% or more at fault), consistent with the majority approach.

Citation: 85A Okla. Stat. Section5(B)(2) (intentional-tort exception, requiring willful, deliberate, specific intent to injure -- not merely substantial certainty).

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

CORRECTED subsection: the prior citation (85A O.S. Section5(H)) was imprecise -- the actual intentional-tort exception language is in Section5(B)(2). Confirmed real: Oklahoma explicitly rejects the substantial-certainty standard used by many states, requiring specific, purposeful intent to injure.