Construction Claim Rules in South Carolina

Statutory interest rate

8.75% / year (pre-judgment, fixed); 10.75%/year compounded annually (post-judgment, floats, effective Jan. 15, 2026 through Jan. 14, 2027)

A flat 8.75%/year 'legal rate' applies to unpaid contract/construction debt before judgment, per S.C. Code Ann. § 34-31-20(A). Once judgment is entered, a floating rate applies instead: the prime rate as listed in the first January edition of the Wall Street Journal for that calendar year, plus 4 percentage points, compounded annually, confirmed each year by SC Supreme Court order no later than January 15, per § 34-31-20(B). For 2026 that works out to 10.75%.

Compounding: Simple pre-judgment; compounded annually post-judgment

Citation: S.C. Code Ann. § 34-31-20

Source: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t34c031.php

Last checked: 2026-08-23

The pre-judgment rate of 8.75% is statutory. The post-judgment rate is the prime rate plus four points, certified by Supreme Court order each January. Published figures disagree on which year carries which rate, so read the current order rather than relying on a number quoted second hand.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when the claim arose, if the measure of recovery was fixed by conditions existing at that time

South Carolina allows prejudgment interest on an obligation to pay money when the sum is certain, or capable of being reduced to certainty, if payment is also demandable by contract or by operation of law. The proper test is whether the measure of recovery was fixed by conditions existing when the claim arose, not whether the amount is disputed; a genuine dispute over the amount owed doesn't by itself make the claim unliquidated. Where the test is met, interest runs from when the claim arose, in practice the breach date.

Citation: Bickerstaff v. Prevost, 380 S.C. 613, 671 S.E.2d 660 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2008/4439.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Probably the same test as a contract claim, but no South Carolina case applies it to property damage

Bickerstaff v. Prevost was a construction contract dispute and does not say whether its test extends to property damage claims. South Carolina's prejudgment interest doctrine is not stated as contract-specific, so a property damage claim with an ascertainable repair cost should qualify on the same reasoning, running from the date of loss.

Citation: Bickerstaff v. Prevost, 380 S.C. 613, 671 S.E.2d 660 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2008/4439.html

Treat this as a reasoned extension rather than settled law and confirm before relying on it for a property damage claim.

Actual Cash Value rule

Replacement cost minus depreciation (labor may be depreciated)

SC Supreme Court held insurers may depreciate labor costs embedded in materials when calculating ACV under a replacement-cost-minus-depreciation policy; a holding that presumes this is SC's underlying methodology. One industry reference page (theartofadjusting.com/acv-determination) instead states South Carolina 'uses the Broad Evidence Rule,' but cites no case or statute for that claim. Weighed against an actual state Supreme Court opinion, the citation below is the stronger finding, but both sources are named here so you can judge for yourself rather than take our word for it.

Citation: Butler v. The Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 858 S.E.2d 407 (S.C. 2021)

Source: https://www.sccourts.org/media/opinions/advSheets/no162021.pdf

Conflicting source (uncited): theartofadjusting.com/acv-determination classifies SC as a 'broad evidence rule' state with no case/statute given. See detail above.

ACV statute or regulation

No South Carolina statute or regulation defines an ACV calculation method or restricts labor depreciation. The rule permitting it comes from case law.

South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-59-10 to 38-59-50 and the claims regulations at S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 69-1 et seq. contain no ACV valuation provision. South Carolina's rule is case law: in Butler v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Co. the state Supreme Court held an insurer may depreciate the embedded labor component of a repair estimate when calculating ACV, reasoning that depreciating materials but not labor would be impractical. No legislation has codified or reversed that holding.

Citation: S.C. Code Ann. 38-59-10 to 38-59-50; S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 69-1 et seq. (reviewed; neither addresses property ACV or labor depreciation); Butler v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 858 S.E.2d 407 (S.C. 2021) (case law, not statute)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2005/69/69.html

South Carolina permits labor depreciation rather than restricting it.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No South Carolina statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, South Carolina permits depreciating labor when repair costs include embedded labor components.

No South Carolina statute or regulation governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the South Carolina Supreme Court held in Butler that an insurer may depreciate the cost of labor in determining ACV where the estimated repair or replacement cost includes both materials and embedded labor. 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: Butler v. The Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., No. 2020-001285 (S.C. May 12, 2021).

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

The Butler holding is taken from a 2025 practitioner survey rather than the opinion.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Generally valid, but described by South Carolina's own courts as a weak defense given four recognized exceptions

The South Carolina Supreme Court holds no-damages-for-delay clauses generally valid and enforceable, but recognizes four exceptions that substantially limit their practical use: the clause won't be enforced where the party invoking it is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith; where the contractor's progress was interfered with by direct, active, or willful interference; where the delay becomes unreasonably long, amounting to an abandonment of the contract; or where the delay results from gross negligence, which the court equates with a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Citation: Williams Elec. Co. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 325 S.C. 129, 480 S.E.2d 447 (1997)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/sc-supreme-court/1442729.html

South Carolina does not recognise the delay-not-contemplated exception that many other states apply, so do not import it from another state's framework.

Construction contract filing deadline

3 years for a contract action

South Carolina's general limitations period for an action upon a contract, obligation, or liability, express or implied (excluding one under seal or a judgment/decree), is 3 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: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-15/chapter-3/section-15-3-530/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New employer rate is a flat 1.0% for businesses with less than 12 months of liability. Experienced employers range from 0.06% to 5.46% by tax class. Taxable wage base is $14,000.

The 2026 new-employer rate is a flat 1.0% for a business with less than twelve months of liability. Experience-rated employers run from 0.06% to 5.46% by tax class and any employer with no benefit charges from 1 July 2022 through 30 June 2025 is placed in class 1 at the minimum 0.06%. The 2026 schedule is the largest percentage cut since 2011, averaging about 34.7% below 2025 for classes 2 to 19. The taxable wage base is $14,000.

Citation: South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (DEW).

Source: https://dew.sc.gov/news/2025-11/2026-tax-rate-cuts-press-release

Last checked: 2026-08-26

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory state. South Carolina mandates adoption of NCCI-approved loss costs; employers purchase coverage from licensed private carriers regulated by the South Carolina Department of Insurance.

South Carolina is an NCCI state; the South Carolina Department of Insurance mandates adoption of NCCI-approved loss costs as the basis for filed workers' compensation rates. South Carolina is a competitive, not monopolistic, state, employers may purchase coverage from any licensed private insurer.

Citation: National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI); South Carolina Department of Insurance

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

Prevailing wage law

South Carolina has no state prevailing-wage law. Public construction contracts are not subject to a state-mandated prevailing wage requirement.

South Carolina has never enacted a state prevailing-wage law and is among the states the U.S. Department of Labor lists as having no such requirement for state or local public construction contracts. Only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies and only to contracts with federal funding.

Citation: U.S. Department of Labor, State Prevailing Wage Laws summary

Source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages

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: Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991); Smith v. Tiffany, 419 S.C. 548, 799 S.E.2d 479 (2017) (nonparty fault excluded); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-38-15 (apportionment and the 50% joint-liability line)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/sc-court-of-appeals/1069537.html

Verified against: the holding of Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co. as quoted in Davenport (S.C. Ct. App. 1997) and in the Supreme Court's own later opinions; Smith v. Tiffany reported as rejecting nonparty fault

Non-economic damages cap

No general cap on non-economic damages

Most states cap non-economic damages only in medical malpractice actions, which does not reach a third-party construction claim. Economic losses, medical bills, lost wages, future earning capacity, are not capped by these statutes.

OSHA plan

Full state plan, private + public sector

South Carolina operates a full OSHA-approved state plan (SC Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation) 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.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; S.C. Code Title 41

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

OSHA standards are a recognised category of evidence in an ordinary negligence claim in South Carolina, confirmed at the Court of Appeals level

In Olson v. Faculty House of Carolina the Court of Appeals rejected a negligence claim because the plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant violated ANSI, ADA, OSHA or other standards for nonslip floors, which confirms such evidence would have been relevant had it existed.

Citation: Olson v. Faculty House of Carolina, Inc., 344 S.C. 194, 544 S.E.2d 38 (Ct. App. 2001).

Source: https://www.sccourts.org/media/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/3289.htm

This is a Court of Appeals decision. The South Carolina Supreme Court has not addressed the question directly.

Third-party contribution against the employer

South Carolina may extend protection to statutory employers; non-immune third parties are reached via premises conditions, retained control, active participation, negligent undertaking, product defects, or vehicles.

Glass v. Dow Chemical set the three-part statutory employee test in a construction facade replacement injury. Keene v. CNA Holdings (2021) narrowed the doctrine and is the more current statement of South Carolina law; see the distinctive doctrine entry below.

Citation: S.C. Code §§42-1-10 et seq.; Glass v. Dow Chemical Co., 325 S.C. 198 (1997).

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1343570/glass-v-dow-chemical-co/

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under §§ 42-1-10 et seq., which may also protect statutory employers

S.C. Code §§ 42-1-10 et seq. make compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer and may protect statutory employers. Confirm the current piercing exceptions directly before relying on them. 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: S.C. Code §§42-1-10 et seq.; Glass v. Dow Chemical Co., 325 S.C. 198 (1997).

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1343570/glass-v-dow-chemical-co/

Distinctive state doctrine

South Carolina significantly narrowed its 'statutory employee' exclusivity doctrine in a 2021 landmark decision, Keene v. CNA Holdings, shifting the test to focus on what the hiring company itself decided is part of its business, making it easier for contract/subcontractor workers to sue in tort rather than being limited to workers-comp.

Before 2021, South Carolina's statutory-employee doctrine barred contract workers from suing in tort if their work was an important, necessary, or previously-performed part of the hiring company's business. In Keene v. CNA Holdings, LLC, 870 S.E.2d 156 (S.C. 2021), which arose from an asbestos-exposure death of a maintenance contractor at a fiber plant, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that when an employer makes a legitimate business decision to outsource work (even work formerly done in-house), that work is no longer considered part of the employer's trade or business, so the exclusivity doctrine does not apply and the worker may sue in tort. This is directly relevant to construction: subcontractors performing work squarely within a general contractor's trade (e.g., framers for a general contractor building a building) generally remain statutory employees limited to workers-comp, but genuinely outsourced specialty work may no longer qualify.

Citation: Keene v. CNA Holdings, LLC, 870 S.E.2d 156 (S.C. 2021).

Source: https://www.maynardnexsen.com/publication-south-carolina-supreme-court-alters-statutory-employee