Every figure below is the researched rule for Oregon, 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.
9% / year, fixed
Applies to general obligations and money judgments unless a higher contract rate or the medical-malpractice carve-out applies. Interest accrued before judgment folds into the judgment principal at entry (one compounding event), then accrues simple interest going forward.
From when damages become readily ascertainable, generally the breach date
Oregon's leading case, Public Market Co. v. City of Portland, held that whether a claim is brought on the contract or in tort should not control prejudgment interest, with substance over form. Interest is available once damages are readily ascertainable, meaning either actually ascertained or ascertainable by simple computation or by reference to generally recognised standards. Ascertainability can precede the actual calculation, so complex arithmetic alone does not defeat the claim. Once the underlying facts are resolved, interest generally runs from the breach date.
Same 'readily ascertainable' test as contract claims: Oregon doesn't use a separate tort/property-damage rule
Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. reaffirms that Oregon doesn't distinguish contract from tort claims for this purpose; a property-damage claim with a readily ascertainable loss amount, such as a fixed repair cost, can carry prejudgment interest from the date that amount became ascertainable, in practice the date of loss.
How ACV is determined, whether labor cost can be depreciated and the rules on releasing withheld recoverable depreciation.
No single formula; court/appraiser discretion (functions like a broad evidence rule)
Oregon case law holds there is no universal test for valuing injured or destroyed property, giving appraisers and courts discretion to select the appropriate approach case by case.
No Oregon opinion found using the literal term 'broad evidence rule'; this label describes the functional standard, not a quoted term of art the courts themselves use. Mathis (linked above) is the leading Supreme Court case; Schnitzer is viewable at https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1983/661-p-2d-550.html.
No Oregon statute or rule defines an ACV calculation method or restricts depreciating labor for property claims.
Oregon's unfair claims settlement rules at OAR 836-080-0235 cover claim acceptance, denial timelines and notice requirements rather than valuation. OAR 836-080-0240 is limited to automobile total losses. Nothing in OAR chapter 836, division 80 defines property ACV or addresses labor depreciation. Oregon's ACV rule comes from case law applying a market value or broad evidence approach.
No Oregon statute sets a general holdback release deadline, but a real statute requires insurers to disclose their depreciation methodology and sets deadlines for related post-loss payments (debris removal, landscaping loss).
ORS ch. 742 requires an insurer to disclose information about how it determines the depreciated value of insured property's contents, pay covered debris-removal costs within 60 days of receiving documentation and pay for covered loss of trees, shrubs, or landscaping within 30 days of receiving documentation, but none of the provisions cited here sets a general deadline or procedure for releasing withheld recoverable depreciation on the primary structure or contents once repairs are complete.
Oregon regulates more of the surrounding process than most states even without a holdback deadline: the disclosure requirement plus the 60 day and 30 day payment deadlines are enforceable in their own right.
Whether a no-damages-for-delay clause will be enforced against you and the deadline for bringing a construction contract claim.
Void by statute in public improvement contracts where the contracting agency caused the delay. Private contracts are unresolved.
Oregon law declares against public policy and void and unenforceable, any clause in a public improvement contract that purports to waive, release, or extinguish a contractor's right to damages or an equitable adjustment for unreasonable delay in performing the contract, where the delay is caused by acts or omissions of the contracting agency or persons acting on its behalf. Oregon courts have not yet addressed whether or how a no-damages-for-delay clause is enforced in a private (non-public) Oregon construction contract.
ORS 279C.315 reaches public improvement contracts only, unlike Washington's broader statute. Whether it covers subcontracts on a public project is unsettled, since the text speaks of public improvement contracts.
6 years for a contract action
Oregon's general limitations period for an action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, is 6 years from accrual, unless a more specific statute applies, 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 2.4%. Experienced employers range from 0.9% to 5.4% under Tax Schedule 3 for 2026. Taxable wage base is $56,700.
The Oregon Employment Department set the 2026 new-employer unemployment insurance tax rate at 2.4%. Established employers are rated under Tax Schedule 3 for 2026, with rates ranging from 0.9% to 5.4% depending on experience. The taxable wage base for 2026 is $56,700 per employee, among the highest state wage bases in the country. A separate payroll tax offset of 0.135% per quarter also applies in 2026 under a special statutory provision.
Oregon sets a single flat 2.4% new-employer rate for all industries, so treat sources describing an industry-varying 2.1% to 2.7% range as wrong. Paid Leave Oregon is a separate contribution from this tax. Reconfirm the rate, schedule and wage base each year.
NCCI advisory state. Oregon uses NCCI-filed pure premium rates and class codes, with the state's Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) regulating filed rates; employers buy coverage from licensed private carriers or the SAIF Corporation, Oregon's competitive state fund.
Oregon is an NCCI state for workers' compensation classification and loss-cost data. It is not a monopolistic state: employers may purchase coverage from any authorized private insurer or from SAIF Corporation, a nonprofit public corporation that operates as a competitive (not exclusive) state fund. The Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) publishes an annual premium rate ranking report comparing Oregon's costs to other states.
Oregon has its own prevailing-wage law under ORS 279C.800 to 279C.870 (the Prevailing Wage Rate law), administered by the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). It applies to public works contracts exceeding $50,000.
Oregon's Prevailing Wage Rate (PWR) law, codified at ORS 279C.800 to 279C.870, requires contractors and subcontractors on public works projects to pay locally prevailing wage rates once a contract's value exceeds $50,000. The Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) publishes and enforces the applicable wage rates. Projects at or below the $50,000 threshold are not subject to PWR wage requirements, though other public contracting rules under ORS Chapter 279C may still apply.
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.
Oregon compares against a defined list, which is neither 'the defendants' nor 'everyone at fault'. s 31.600(2) names three groups and no others: the parties sued, third party defendants who are liable in tort to the claimant and anyone the claimant has settled with. A person outside those three cannot go on the verdict form at all.
That matters directly on a construction site. An employer immune under workers' compensation is not 'liable in tort to the claimant', so it cannot be a third party defendant and its share cannot be counted on the defence side. The practical effect is the Kansas result reached by a different route.
The one route left for a defendant is s 31.600(5): it may argue the injury was the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE fault of a non-party. That is all or nothing, not apportionment.
Two further points. Oregon bars only where the worker's fault is GREATER THAN the combined fault of that list, so an even split recovers, unlike the parity-bar states. And under s 31.610 liability is several only, though a claimant may move within one year to reallocate an uncollectible share among the remaining parties, which most several-liability states do not allow.
No cap, the enacted limit was held unconstitutional
The $500,000 cap at Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.710(1) was held to violate the remedy clause of Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution as applied to a personal injury plaintiff who survives the injury. The court expressly declined to rule on other circumstances. Wrongful death remains governed by Greist v. Phillips, so the cap is not uniformly dead.
Oregon OSHA: full state plan, private + public sector
Oregon operates Oregon OSHA, a full OSHA-approved state plan covering both private and public-sector employers. A state plan must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may set stricter standards, so check the state rule before assuming the federal text applies. It also covers state and local government employees, which federal OSHA does not, so a public works injury is inside the state agency's jurisdiction. Citations are issued by the state agency and contested before the state's own review body rather than the federal commission, which changes where the file lives when you go looking for it. Reporting deadlines follow the federal rule: 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.
Oregon splits the question: a safety regulation that directly regulates the defendant can support negligence per se, while one that does not is still admissible as evidence of the standard of care.
Hagan v. Gemstate Manufacturing, Inc., 328 Or 535, 542, 982 P2d 1108 (1999) (Oregon Supreme Court): where a safety regulation did not directly regulate the defendant, it could not support a negligence per se claim, but was still 'admissible to provide some information about whether the defendant met the applicable standard of care.' George v. Myers, 2000 (Or. Ct. App.) applied this directly to a construction-site fall-protection dispute, distinguishing cases where the regulation does directly regulate the defendant (potential negligence per se) from cases where it does not (evidence only, not per se).
Oregon extends protection to qualifying statutory employers, not just the direct employer.
A party that does not qualify as a statutory employer is reached through retained control, negligent undertaking, premises liability, product defect or the compensation lien. Fazzolari v. Portland School District sets the duty framework that governs every Oregon negligence claim, construction included, though its own facts are not construction.
General protection under ch. 656 for employers and qualifying statutory employers
Or. Rev. Stat. ch. 656 protects the employer and qualifying statutory employers. Smothers v. Gresham Transfer challenged exclusivity on remedy clause grounds where a claim was found non-compensable, but its remedy clause analysis was later overruled by Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University (2016). Read Horton before relying on that line. 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.
Design professional immunity for on-site services, with negligent design carved out, plus the railroad and utility carve-out to the contribution bar
ORS 30.785 provides that a construction design professional retained to perform professional services on a construction project, or an employee of that professional performing such services, is not liable for a worker's compensable injury resulting from the employer's failure to comply with safety standards on the project, unless the design professional specifically assumed responsibility for those standards by contract. The immunity does not extend to negligent preparation of design plans or specifications. Separately, ORS 656.018(1)(b) carves railroads and utilities out of the contribution bar and Oregon's exclusivity provision has survived several constitutional challenges.
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.
