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 was brought on the contract or in tort shouldn't control prejudgment interest, with substance triumphing over form; interest is available once damages are readily ascertainable, meaning they were either actually ascertained, or ascertainable by simple computation or by reference to generally recognized standards. Ascertainability can precede the actual calculation, so complex math alone doesn't 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 (both links added in a follow-up verification pass).
No Oregon statute or administrative rule was found that statutorily defines the ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation for property claims.
Oregon's unfair claims settlement rules at OAR 836-080-0235 (Standards for Prompt and Fair Settlements, Generally) were reviewed and address claim acceptance and denial timelines and notice requirements, not valuation methodology. OAR 836-080-0240 is limited to automobile total-loss settlements. No section within OAR chapter 836, division 80 defining property ACV or addressing labor depreciation was located. Oregon case law applies a market-value or broad-evidence approach to ACV, which is a separate common-law matter already reflected elsewhere on this site.
Reviewed the general and auto-specific prompt-settlement rules in OAR chapter 836 division 80; no property-specific ACV or labor-depreciation provision was found.
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 no provision in the sections reviewed sets a general deadline or procedure for releasing withheld recoverable depreciation on the primary structure or contents once repairs are complete.
RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No general holdback-timing statute found, but Oregon does have real, confirmed statutory deadlines for related post-loss payment categories and a depreciation-disclosure requirement -- more specific regulation than most 'not found' states this session, even without a direct answer to the core question.
Whether a no-damages-for-delay clause will be enforced against you, and the deadline for bringing a construction contract claim.
Void by statute for public improvement contracts when the contracting agency caused the delay; unresolved for private contracts
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.
RESEARCHED from scratch. Confirmed real: ORS 279C.315 (formerly 279.063), enacted 2005, voids no-damages-for-delay clauses as against public policy -- but UNLIKE Washington's statute, applies ONLY to public prime contracts, not private contracts. Whether it reaches subcontracts on public projects is unsettled -- the statute's text refers only to '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.
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 also administers a separate Paid Leave Oregon payroll contribution, which is distinct from the SUTA/UI tax reported here. Reconfirm the UI rate, schedule and wage base annually on oregon.gov/employ since both are recalculated each year. Confirmed directly against the Oregon Employment Department's own November 2025 announcement (a single flat 2.4% new-employer rate for all industries). Some secondary sources incorrectly describe an industry-varying 2.1%-2.7% range; OED's own statement contradicts that directly.
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.
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.
Oregon has real, high-court-level precedent: when a safety regulation directly regulates the defendant, its violation can support negligence per se; when it does not directly regulate the defendant, the same regulation is still admissible as general evidence of the applicable standard of care, just not as negligence per se.
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).
RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was a generic placeholder). Confirmed real: OSHA/OOSHC rules and ANSI advisory standards that do not directly regulate the defendant are not binding but are admissible as evidence of the industry standard of care for the jury's consideration -- not negligence per se.
Oregon extends protection to qualifying statutory employers, not just the direct employer.
Non-qualifying third parties are reached via retained control, negligent undertaking, premises, product defect, or contribution/lien issues.
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. Confirmed real. Its facts are not about construction (a school assault case), but it establishes the foundational "Fazzolari principle" that governs the duty element of ALL Oregon negligence claims, construction third-party claims included -- genuinely the controlling general framework, not a topical mismatch, even though the underlying facts are unrelated.
General protection under ch. 656 for employers and qualifying statutory employers: this source cites a case on "independent duty" but doesn't detail the standard.
Or. Rev. Stat. ch. 656 generally protects the employer and qualifying statutory employers. The manual cites Smothers v. Gresham Transfer under "independent duty and workers' compensation" but doesn't itself detail the holding; confirm directly.
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. Confirmed real and directly on point (challenged the exclusivity provision on remedy-clause grounds when a claim was found non-compensable). Worth noting Smothers's remedy-clause analysis was later overruled by Horton v. Oregon Health & Science Univ., 359 Or. 168 (2016) -- a future content pass should incorporate Horton.
Railroad/utility carve-out to the contribution bar (see thirdPartyContribution), plus a confirmed design-professional immunity provision; Oregon is now the eighth state found with this carve-out
See thirdPartyContribution above for the ORS 656.018(1)(b) railroad/utility carve-out. Oregon's exclusivity provision (ORS 656.018) has also survived multiple constitutional challenges (freedom-of-contract under Article I, Section 20; equal protection). Separately, ORS 30.785 confirms Oregon's own design-professional immunity provision, with full text verified: a construction design professional retained to perform professional services on a construction project, or an employee of that design 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 safety standards by contract. This immunity does not extend to the negligent preparation of design plans or specifications. This is the same basic structure found in Georgia, Missouri, Connecticut, Alaska, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, making Oregon the eighth state confirmed with this type of carve-out, just under different statutory numbering (originally enacted 1987 c.915 §12).
ClaimDuke's calculators compute delay and extended overhead (Eichleay), fully burdened labor rates, ACV/RCV property loss, litigation 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.