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 specified in the sources reviewed; treat as simple interest absent further confirmation.

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 postjudgment rate changes periodically as the federal rate moves; treat as a variable input, not a hardcoded constant. Cross-checked the 1-year Treasury constant maturity rate (the 28 U.S.C. section 1961 federal postjudgment rate) + 2% against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately 6.04 postjudgment (federal postjudgment rate + 2%); 10% predjudgment default%. 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 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

Likely the same 'certain or capable of being made certain' test, but not confirmed against a property-damage case directly

Utah case law confirms this test excludes claims requiring genuine fact-finder discretion, such as personal injury, wrongful death, or defamation, where damages can't be calculated with mathematical accuracy. Ordinary property-damage claims (repair costs, replacement value) are generally treated as calculable by facts and figures the same way contract damages are, but no Utah case reviewed applied the test squarely to a construction-related property-damage claim.

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

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

This entry extends the general Utah test to property damage by reasoning from how Kraatz distinguishes calculable claims from discretionary ones; it is not based on a case that squarely decided a property-damage prejudgment-interest date. Confirm before relying on it for a contested claim.

Actual Cash Value rule

Replacement cost minus depreciation (weakly sourced: no case or statute found; confirmed by a second, more rigorous research pass)

No Utah statute or published appellate case was found establishing a controlling ACV methodology. The only citation available is a Utah Insurance Department consumer glossary (informational guidance, not binding law), reported secondhand through an industry compendium. Multiple consumer-facing sites describe Utah practice the same way but without citing any statute or case; they appear to describe common industry practice rather than a judicially or legislatively established rule. A second research pass directly pulled and read Anderson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 583 P.2d 101 (Utah 1978), a real Utah Supreme Court property/fire-policy case mentioning 'actual cash value' and confirmed it addresses proof-of-loss sufficiency, not the ACV valuation methodology itself, so it does not fill the gap.

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; no controlling case or statute found after two separate, thorough research passes. The second pass independently corroborated the gap using two additional professional legal compendia (in addition to the one found in the first pass) that specifically catalog state-by-state ACV law and both state 'no case or statute directly on point' for Utah. Treat as 'best available description of practice,' not settled law. Source link added: official Utah Insurance Department glossary confirms the definition directly.

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 Utah's Standards for Prompt, Fair and Equitable Settlement rules for fire and extended-coverage policies with replacement cost coverage (revised effective January 24, 2024), defines actual cash value as the replacement cost of the property at the time of loss less depreciation, if any, and requires the insurer to provide the insured, on request, a copy of claim-file documentation detailing each depreciation deduction. It also lets the insurer forgo a full ACV calculation, with a written explanation on request, when the property has negligible value or a value disproportionate to replacement cost. The rule does not single out labor for special treatment, and no Utah appellate decision addressing labor depreciation was found.

Citation: Utah Admin. Code R590-190-13

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

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Utah regulation found addressing timing or notice requirements for paying withheld depreciation after repairs are completed.

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

Checked the applicable settlement-standards regulation directly; no holdback-timing provision was found elsewhere in Utah Admin. Code R590-190.

“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/

RESEARCHED via Watt Tieder LLP 50-state survey (confirmed real). Utah's exception is direct/active/willful interference by the contractee.

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.

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

The precise new-employer rate for typical (non-out-of-state-contractor) new employers depends on industry-average benefit ratios rather than a single published number; confirm the applicable industry rate directly on jobs.utah.gov before use. Confirmed exactly, including the out-of-state-contractor 7.1% maximum-rate detail, against the official Utah DWS announcement.

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

Confirmed by both the U.S. Department of Labor's state prevailing wage summary and a secondary legal industry source. This is a stable historical fact and unlikely to change without new legislation, but should still be checked against current Utah Code for any post-2026 developments.

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.

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.

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

Utah Code Section34A-2-106 explicitly provides that fault apportioned to the employer in a third-party civil action does NOT create employer liability and does NOT diminish the employer's exclusivity immunity -- directly barring third-party contribution.

Under Utah Code Section34A-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 Section34A-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 Section34A-2-106.

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

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Jex v. JRA, Inc., 196 P.3d 576 (Utah 2008)) was wrong-topic -- that case is a grocery-store slip-and-fall premises liability case unrelated to workers-comp third-party contribution. Replaced with the actual controlling statute, confirmed real and directly on point via the statute's own text.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General exclusivity under §§34A-2-101 et seq., may extend to protect statutory employers: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.

Utah Code §§34A-2-101 et seq. generally makes compensation exclusive against the employer and may protect statutory employers. The manual doesn't identify a further piercing exception; confirm directly.

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

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

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