Construction Claim Rules in Wisconsin

Statutory interest rate

5% / year (prejudgment); floating, reset twice yearly (postjudgment)

Prejudgment interest on ascertainable/liquidated construction-contract damages uses the 5% legal rate. The resulting judgment then accrues postjudgment interest at 1% plus the prime rate in effect each Jan 1/Jul 1 (currently 7.75% for Jul-Dec 2026, unchanged from Jan-Jun 2026 because the prime rate did not move); a separate 12% rate applies only in narrower rejected-settlement-offer contexts, not general construction claims.

Compounding: Simple

Citation: Wis. Stat. §§ 138.04 (prejudgment), 815.05(8) (postjudgment)

Source: https://www.wicourts.gov/services/public/selfhelp/docs/interestrate.pdf

Last checked: 2026-08-23

Verified directly against the Wisconsin Courts official interest-rate table (wicourts.gov), which lists Jul 1-Dec 31, 2026 at 7.75%, same as Jan-Jun 2026. Cross-checked against Bankrate's current WSJ Prime Rate (6.75% as of Aug 18, 2026, unchanged for over a month), which is consistent with 1% + 6.75% = 7.75%. The numeric rate was already correct; only the stale 'Jan-Jun 2026' period label in the detail text needed correction. Prejudgment 5% rate and both statute citations confirmed against the same wicourts.gov source and Wisconsin Legislature statute pages.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when payment was contractually due, or from demand if the contract sets no due date

Wisconsin's common-law rule for liquidated claims, applied to construction-contract debts, is that the creditor is entitled to interest from the time payment was due under the contract's own terms; if the contract specifies no due date, interest instead runs from the date a demand for payment was made.

Citation: Estreen v. Bluhm, 79 Wis. 2d 315 (1977)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1977/75-167-7.html

Estreen itself involved a land-contract payment dispute; its rule is understood more broadly to govern liquidated construction/contract debts generally, though this application wasn't confirmed against a construction-specific case.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

From date of loss once damages are ascertainable, but only against a single defendant

Wisconsin generally allows prejudgment interest on a liquidated property-damage claim from the date the loss became ascertainable. Where multiple defendants are involved, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held interest cannot run from the date of loss because no single defendant can know their share of liability before fault is apportioned at trial; in a multi-defendant case, interest instead runs only from the date of verdict forward.

Citation: Beacon Bowl, Inc. v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 176 Wis. 2d 740 (1993)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1993/91-0862-9.html

Whether a claim has one defendant or several changes the accrual date; confirm how many parties are being pursued before assuming a date-of-loss start.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule

Applies when the policy doesn't itself define ACV; fact-finder weighs every fact/circumstance logically bearing on value.

Citation: Doelger & Kirsten, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 42 Wis. 2d 518 (1969)

Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/632

ACV statute or regulation

No Wisconsin statute or regulation found that defines ACV calculation or restricts depreciating labor for property claims.

Wisconsin continues to determine ACV for property losses under the common-law broad evidence rule, as articulated in Doelger & Kirsten, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 42 Wis. 2d 518 (1969), which allows the fact-finder to consider a range of relevant factors and qualified expert opinion rather than applying a fixed statutory formula. No Insurance Code provision (Wis. Stat. ch. 628 or ch. 631) or Office of the Commissioner of Insurance rule defining ACV or addressing labor depreciation specifically was located.

Citation: Doelger & Kirsten, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 42 Wis. 2d 518 (1969)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1969/230-5-3.html

This reflects the state's common-law ACV rule, already covered by the site's existing common-law acv field. No separate insurance-code statute or NAIC-model regulation addressing labor depreciation was found for Wisconsin.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Wisconsin statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, or the depreciation of labor specifically, was found.

No Wisconsin-specific statute, regulation, or bulletin addressing recoverable-depreciation holdback timing or the labor-depreciation question was located; Wisconsin was not listed among states with confirmed rules on either question in the sources reviewed. This appears to be governed by individual policy terms.

Source: https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/depreciation-of-labor-in-calculating-acv-yes-or-no

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No statute, regulation, or case addressing either the timing question or the labor-depreciation question was found for Wisconsin specifically in this pass -- unlike most other 'not found' states this session, no source is linked here because none was found to be worth citing (searches returned only generic multi-state consumer content, not Wisconsin-specific authority).

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable even against uncontemplated delay, with exceptions for the engineer's fraud, bad faith, or gross incompetence

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held a no-damages-for-delay clause remains valid and enforceable even when the delay wasn't contemplated by the parties, a notably contractor-unfriendly position compared to most other states' contemplated-delay exception. The clause won't be enforced, however, where the delay results from fraudulent conduct by the project engineer, bad-faith orders designed to obstruct the contractor, or unnecessary orders harming the contractor that stem from the engineer's inexcusable ignorance or incompetence.

Citation: John E. Gregory & Son, Inc. v. A. Guenther & Sons Co., 147 Wis. 2d 298, 432 N.W.2d 584, 587 (1988)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1988/87-0437-9.html

RESEARCHED from scratch. Confirmed real, foundational, and still cited (2022). Wisconsin explicitly REJECTS the 'uncontemplated delay' exception recognized by many other states -- Wisconsin's only exceptions are intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence by the party seeking the clause's protection.

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for a contract action

Wisconsin's general limitations period for an action upon any contract, obligation, or liability, express or implied, is 6 years from accrual, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim.

Citation: Wis. Stat. § 893.43

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2022/chapter-893/section-893-43/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Wisconsin's 2026 new-employer rates: 3.05% (payroll under $500,000) or 3.25% (payroll $500,000+) for most industries; construction employers get a lower 2.90% or 3.10% respectively. Experience-rated range is 0.00% to 12.00%. Taxable wage base is $14,000.

Confirmed directly against dwd.wisconsin.gov and a real 2026 DWD form (UCT-43-E): new-employer rates split by both industry (construction vs. general) and payroll size, not a single flat figure. Construction new-employer rates are actually LOWER than general new-employer rates in Wisconsin, an unusual pattern compared to Ohio, Massachusetts, and Indiana, all confirmed this round to charge construction employers a HIGHER new-employer rate.

Citation: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD).

Source: https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/ui/employers/taxrates.htm

Last checked: 2026-08-26

CORRECTED: the prior entry stated a flat 2.50%-3.25% new-employer range; the real 2026 structure is four distinct figures (2.90%/3.10% construction, 3.05%/3.25% general, split by payroll size), confirmed directly against dwd.wisconsin.gov.

Workers' compensation rating

Wisconsin does not use NCCI. Rates are set through the independent Wisconsin Compensation Rating Bureau (WCRB), a licensed rate service organization regulated by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance.

Wisconsin is one of a small number of states with its own independent workers' compensation rating bureau rather than relying on NCCI. The Wisconsin Compensation Rating Bureau (WCRB), a licensed rate service organization operating under Wisconsin Statute Chapter 626, develops classifications, rating rules and rate filings, and administers the Wisconsin Worker's Compensation Insurance Pool for hard-to-place risks. WCRB operates under the regulation of the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and coordinates with the DWD's Worker's Compensation Division. Wisconsin is a competitive, non-monopolistic state for coverage.

Citation: Wis. Stat. Chapter 626; Wis. Stat. Section 102.01 et seq.

Source: https://www.wcrb.org/about-us/

Prevailing wage law

Wisconsin repealed its state prevailing wage law for state projects effective in 2017-2018, and had already phased out local prevailing wage coverage around 2017; only the federal Davis-Bacon Act now applies to Wisconsin public works receiving federal funds.

Wisconsin's state prevailing wage law was repealed through the 2017-2019 state budget act, with state agencies now following the federal Davis-Bacon Act's U.S. Department of Labor wage determinations instead of a separate state schedule. Local prevailing wage requirements had already been phased out for projects bid on or after January 1, 2017. As a result, Wisconsin has no current general state prevailing wage requirement; only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies, and only when federal funds are involved, at the standard $2,000 federal threshold. Wisconsin DOT projects funded with federal-aid highway money remain subject to separate federal prevailing wage rules tied to that highway funding.

Citation: Repealed by 2017 Wisconsin Act 59 (former Wis. Stat. Section 66.0903 and Section 103.49/103.50)

Source: https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/laborstandards/prevailingwage/

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Wisconsin has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667 (State Plan roster)

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

A federal OSHA violation is not itself a violation of Wisconsin law, but it is admissible EVIDENCE of a violation of Wisconsin's own Safe Place Statute (Wis. Stat. § 101.11), a heightened, non-delegable duty owed by employers and property owners.

Confirmed directly against the official Wisconsin Legislature annotations to Wis. Stat. § 102.61: Sohn Manufacturing Inc. v. LIRC, 2013 WI App 112, 350 Wis. 2d [___], held that 'a violation of a federal OSHA standard was not a violation of a statute, rule, or order of the department, but was evidence of a violation of a Wisconsin statute, the safe place statute, s. 101.11.' This confirms the existing entry's characterization: OSHA doesn't operate as an independent basis for liability in Wisconsin, but functions as evidence feeding into the state's own heightened statutory duty. Nordeen v. Hammerlund, 132 Wis. 2d 164, 389 N.W.2d 878 (Ct. App. 1986), separately confirms this applies specifically at construction sites: a failure to instruct the jury that a safety-rule violation was negligence per se, in a case involving safety rules applied to a frequenter of a new home construction site, was reversible error.

Citation: Sohn Manufacturing Inc. v. LIRC, 2013 WI App 112; Nordeen v. Hammerlund, 132 Wis. 2d 164, 389 N.W.2d 878 (Ct. App. 1986); Wis. Stat. § 101.11 (Safe Place Statute).

Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/statutes/statutes/102/61/1g

Third-party contribution against the employer

No statutory-employer shield described for Wisconsin; instead, the Safe Place Statute can impose separate, fact-specific duties on a property owner/employer beyond ordinary exclusivity.

The key third-party question in Wisconsin is whether the Safe Place Statute's duties apply to the particular defendant and condition, not a statutory-employer determination.

Citation: Wis. Stat. ch. 102, §§101.01, 101.11; Brandenburg v. Briarwood Forestry Services, LLC, 2014 WI 37, 354 Wis. 2d 413, 847 N.W.2d 395.

Source: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/civil/1022-6.pdf

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. CORRECTED citation: the prior entry named "Briarwood Builders, Inc." and cited "2010 WI 6" -- both wrong. The real, on-point case is Brandenburg v. Briarwood FORESTRY Services, LLC, 2014 WI 37 -- confirmed real and directly on point (the inherently-dangerous-work exception to Wisconsin's independent-contractor non-liability rule).

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Exclusivity generally bars claims, but Wisconsin's Safe Place Statute can impose a separate, fact-specific duty on the employer as a property owner.

Wis. Stat. ch. 102 generally makes compensation exclusive against the employer. Wisconsin's Safe Place Statute (§§101.01, 101.11) may impose duties concerning unsafe property or places of employment, but its application to a particular employer is fact specific.

Citation: Wis. Stat. ch. 102 (exclusivity); Wis. Stat. Section101.11 (Safe Place Statute).

Source: https://www.murphyprachthauser.com/blog/premises-liability-common-cases/

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Estate of Merrill v. Jandra, 2005 WI 6) is fabricated -- no such case exists, already independently confirmed unfindable when the same fabricated cite appeared in the distinctiveDoctrine field for this state. The real, distinctive Wisconsin mechanism is the Safe Place Statute (Section101.11), which imposes a higher-than-ordinary-negligence duty on building owners/employers to maintain premises in as safe a condition as reasonably possible -- confirmed real via independent legal-industry source. This is a separate, fact-specific premises-liability duty rather than a piercing exception to exclusivity itself.

Distinctive state doctrine

CORRECTED: replaced a fabricated/unfindable citation (Estate of Merrill v. Jandra) with Wisconsin's real distinctive doctrine -- the Safe Place Statute, which imposes a higher standard of care on building owners/employers than ordinary negligence.

Wis. Stat. Section101.11 (the 'Safe Place Statute') requires employers and owners of public buildings to maintain their premises in as safe a condition as the nature of the premises reasonably permits. Unlike ordinary negligence claims, which require proof of foreseeability, Safe Place claims focus on the objective condition of the property, meaning liability may attach even where the owner did not know of the hazard -- a higher standard than most states' general negligence approach to premises conditions.

Citation: Wis. Stat. Section101.11.

Source: https://www.murphyprachthauser.com/blog/premises-liability-common-cases/

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Estate of Merrill v. Jandra, 2005 WI 6) was already flagged elsewhere in this dataset (graveInjuryGate field) as unfindable/fabricated -- confirmed the same problem here and replaced with a real, distinctive Wisconsin doctrine.