Construction Claim Rules in Utah

Statutory interest rate

10% / year, fixed (contract default, pre-judgment); federal postjudgment rate + 2% floating (post-judgment)

Where a contract doesn't specify its own rate, Utah courts commonly apply the statutory default of 10% per year as prejudgment interest on contract/construction damages. Postjudgment interest instead floats: the federal postjudgment rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 plus 2 percentage points (a higher rate, federal + 10%, applies only to judgments under $10,000 for goods/services purchases).

Compounding: Not stated in the statutes; treat as simple interest.

Citation: Utah Code § 15-1-1 (contract default); Utah Code § 15-1-4 (postjudgment)

Source: https://www.utcourts.gov/en/court-records-publications/resources/interest-rates/interestrates.html

Last checked: 2026-08-25

The post-judgment rate is the federal rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 plus two points, so it moves with the federal figure. Treat it as a variable input rather than a fixed number.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when the claim amount becomes fixed and calculable by facts and figures, not necessarily the trial date

Utah's controlling test, set out by the Utah Supreme Court, is that prejudgment interest is allowed once the damage is complete, the amount of loss is fixed as of a particular time, where that loss can be measured by facts and figures rather than opinion or discretion; interest then runs from that point forward. In the case establishing this rule, interest ran from the date a construction termination claim was submitted, since the claim was mathematically calculable from that point even though trial came later.

Citation: Encon Utah, LLC v. Fluor Ames Kraemer, LLC, 2009 UT 38

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1356441.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Probably the same certain-or-capable-of-being-made-certain test, though no Utah case applies it to property damage

Utah case law confirms the test excludes claims that need genuine fact-finder discretion, such as personal injury, wrongful death or defamation, where damages cannot be calculated with mathematical accuracy. Ordinary property damage claims like repair cost or replacement value are usually treated as calculable in the same way as contract damages.

Citation: Kraatz v. Heritage Imports, 2003 UT App 202

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court-of-appeals-published/2003/kraatz061203.html

This extends the general Utah test to property damage by reasoning from how Kraatz separates calculable claims from discretionary ones. Confirm before relying on it in a contested claim.

Actual Cash Value rule

Replacement cost less depreciation, described by the Insurance Department rather than set by statute or case law

No Utah statute or published appellate decision establishes a controlling ACV methodology. The Utah Insurance Department's consumer glossary describes ACV as replacement cost less depreciation and consumer-facing sources describe Utah practice the same way without citing authority. Anderson v. State Farm (1978) mentions actual cash value but decides proof of loss sufficiency rather than valuation method.

Citation: Utah Insurance Dept. Glossary of Homeowner Insurance Terms (informal guidance, not binding law)

Source: https://insurance.utah.gov/consumers/home-insurance/home-glossary/

This is the weakest-sourced ACV entry on the site. Two independent compendia that catalogue state ACV law both report no case or statute on point for Utah. Treat it as a description of practice rather than settled law. Note that Utah's claims regulation does define ACV for prompt settlement purposes; see the ACV statute entry.

ACV statute or regulation

Utah has a regulatory ACV-calculation rule requiring depreciation documentation, but no provision restricting depreciation of labor specifically.

Utah Admin. Code R590-190-13, part of the prompt settlement standards for fire and extended coverage policies with replacement cost coverage and revised effective 24 January 2024, defines actual cash value as the replacement cost of the property at the time of loss less depreciation, if any. It requires the insurer to provide, on request, claim file documentation detailing each depreciation deduction. It also lets the insurer skip a full ACV calculation, with a written explanation on request, where the property has negligible value or a value out of proportion to replacement cost. The rule does not single out labor and no Utah appellate decision addresses depreciating labor.

Citation: Utah Admin. Code R590-190-13

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/utah/Utah-Admin-Code-R590-190-13

Recoverable depreciation holdback

Utah's regulation covers how ACV is calculated but sets no deadline or notice requirement for paying withheld depreciation after repairs, so the policy terms control that step.

R590-190-13 covers how ACV is calculated and what depreciation documentation must be disclosed, but contains no deadline or process requirement for releasing recoverable depreciation once repairs are finished.

Citation: Utah Admin. Code R590-190-13

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/utah/Utah-Admin-Code-R590-190-13

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, with an exception for direct, active, or willful interference; parol evidence can't be used to show the delay was unreasonable

The Utah Supreme Court held a no-damages-for-delay clause does not exculpate the party benefiting from it where its interference with the contractor's work is direct, active, or willful, adopting exceptions recognized in other jurisdictions: delay from fraud or active interference by the party invoking the clause, delay so unreasonably long it amounts to an abandonment of the contract and delay falling outside the categories the clause specifically enumerates. Utah courts have gone further than some other states on one point: parties cannot introduce parol (outside-the-contract) evidence to show a delay was unreasonable, a limitation some other jurisdictions don't impose.

Citation: Allen-Howe Specialties Corp. v. U.S. Constr., Inc., 611 P.2d 705, 709 (Utah 1980); Western Eng'rs, Inc. v. State, 20 Utah 2d 316, 437 P.2d 216, 217-18 (1968)

Source: https://50-state.watttieder.com/states/utah/

Utah's exception is direct, active or willful interference by the party invoking the clause.

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for a written contract claim

Utah's limitations period for an action upon a contract, obligation, or liability founded upon an instrument in writing is 6 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: Utah Code § 78B-2-309

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/utah/2012/title-78b/article-2/section-309

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Utah's 2026 employer tax rate range runs from 0.1 percent to 7.1 percent, with new out-of-state contractors assigned the 7.1 percent maximum; the 2026 taxable wage base is $50,700.

Utah's Department of Workforce Services (DWS) assigns most new employers a rate based on the two-year average benefit ratio for their industry, while new out-of-state contractors (unless they acquire an existing business) are assigned the maximum rate of 7.1 percent. The overall range for experience-rated employers spans from 0.1 percent to 7.1 percent for 2026. The 2026 reserve factor is 1.10 and a social cost factor of 0.001 applies to all employers. The taxable wage base for 2026 is $50,700, up from $48,900 in 2025.

Citation: Utah Code Ann. Section 35A-4-3

Source: https://jobs.utah.gov/ui/employer/public/Questions/TaxRates.aspx

Last checked: 2026-08-26

New out-of-state contractors are assigned the 7.1% maximum rate unless they acquire an existing business, which is a real cost for a contractor entering Utah. Most other new employers get an industry-average rate, so look yours up rather than using a single figure.

Workers' compensation rating

Utah is an NCCI advisory state; workers' compensation rates are set through NCCI loss costs filed with and regulated by the Utah Insurance Department.

Utah participates in the NCCI system for class codes and advisory loss costs. Insurers file their own rates based on NCCI loss costs, subject to review by the Utah Insurance Department. Utah is a competitive state, not monopolistic and coverage is mandatory for most employers with one or more employees.

Citation: Utah Code Ann. Section 34A-2-101 et seq.

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/II_StateAdvisoryForumState_UT.aspx?state=Utah

Prevailing wage law

Utah has no state prevailing wage law; it repealed its prevailing wage statute in 1981 and has not enacted a replacement, so only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies and only on federally funded projects.

Utah repealed its state prevailing wage statute in 1981 and has not since enacted a successor law. State and local public construction contracts in Utah are not subject to any state-level prevailing wage requirement. The federal Davis-Bacon Act still applies to Utah construction projects that receive federal funding, at the standard $2,000 federal contract threshold, but that is a federal requirement, not a state one.

Citation: Repealed statute; no current Utah Code provision

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

This has been stable since the 1981 repeal and would take new legislation to change. Check the current Utah Code if the project is public and the budget is large.

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Modified comparative fault, recovery barred at 50% or more fault

Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is 50% or more at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing.

Citation: Utah Code § 78B-5-818(2) (recovery test); § 78B-5-819 (allocation); § 78B-5-821(4) (nonparties)

Source: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter5/C78B-5-S818_1800010118000101.pdf

Verified against: statute text of Utah Code s 78B-5-818

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

UOSH: full state plan, private + public sector

Utah operates UOSH (Utah Occupational Safety and Health), a full OSHA-approved state plan administered by the Utah Labor Commission, 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; Utah Code Title 34A

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Confirmed evidence, not negligence per se (direct Utah Supreme Court citation)

The Utah Supreme Court held OSHA standards may legitimately contribute to the total mix of what is reasonable conduct in the mind of the jury, but do not themselves establish negligence per se: the majority 'some evidence' classification, with the court explicitly framing OSHA as informing the jury's reasonableness inquiry rather than replacing it. Evidence rather than negligence per se means the violation goes to the jury as one fact among several. The worker still proves duty, breach, causation and damages in the ordinary way and the defendant can argue the standard did not apply to it, that the cited condition did not cause this injury, or that the citation was contested or withdrawn. The reverse is also true: compliance with OSHA is not a defence, since the standards are a floor rather than a definition of reasonable care.

Citation: Tallman v. City of Hurricane, 1999 UT 55, ¶ 21, 985 P.2d 892, 897

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ut-supreme-court/1411257.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

Fault apportioned to the employer in a third-party action creates no employer liability and does not weaken its immunity, which bars third-party contribution.

Under Utah Code § 34A-2-106(3), when a third party is sued and fault is apportioned to the employer, that apportionment of fault 'is not an action at law and does not impose any liability on the employer,' and does not alter or diminish the exclusiveness of the employer's immunity under § 34A-2-105. If the combined fault of persons immune from suit (e.g., the employer) is 40% or more, the employer's reimbursement lien is reduced but the employer itself faces no direct liability to the third party.

Citation: Utah Code § 34A-2-106.

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/utah/title-34a/chapter-2/part-1/section-106/

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under §§ 34A-2-101 et seq., which may also protect statutory employers

Utah Code §§ 34A-2-101 et seq. make compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer and may protect statutory employers. Helf v. Chevron U.S.A. is Utah's leading decision on when that immunity can be pierced. Read it before relying on an exception. 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: Utah Code §§34A-2-101 et seq.; Helf v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 203 P.3d 962 (Utah 2009).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2009/helf021309.html

Distinctive state doctrine

No automatic GC statutory-employer immunity, plus the 40%-threshold fault-allocation mechanism (see thirdPartyContribution; both are significant, distinctive findings)

See thirdPartyContribution above.

Citation: Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., 777 P.2d 428 (Utah 1989); Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-106(5)-(6)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1989/20485.html