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

The post-judgment rate is 1% above the prime rate in effect each January 1 and July 1, which put it at 7.75% for July through December 2026. Pull the current figure from the court system's published table. The separate 12% rate applies only to rejected settlement offers, not to an ordinary construction claim.

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 was a land contract dispute. Its rule is understood to govern liquidated contract debts generally, though no construction-specific case was identified applying it.

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 determines ACV for property losses under the common law broad evidence rule from Doelger & Kirsten v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., which lets the fact-finder weigh a range of relevant factors and qualified expert opinion rather than applying a fixed formula. No insurance code provision under chapters 628 or 631 and no Office of the Commissioner of Insurance rule defines ACV or addresses depreciating labor.

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

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Wisconsin statute or regulation governs holdback timing or the depreciation of labor, so the policy terms control.

No Wisconsin statute, regulation or bulletin addresses recoverable depreciation holdback timing or the labor question. Read the policy's replacement cost provisions.

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

“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

Wisconsin rejects the uncontemplated delay exception that most states recognise. Its only exceptions are intentional wrongdoing or gross incompetence by the party seeking the clause's protection, which makes Wisconsin one of the harder states for a delayed contractor.

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. 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: 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.

Wisconsin splits new-employer rates by industry and by payroll size rather than using one figure. For 2026, a general employer pays 3.05% under $500,000 of payroll or 3.25% at $500,000 and above, while a construction employer pays 2.90% or 3.10% on the same split. Experience-rated employers run from 0.00% to 12.00%. The taxable wage base is $14,000.

Citation: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD).

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

Last checked: 2026-08-26

Wisconsin is the rare state where construction pays a lower new-employer rate than general industry. Ohio, Massachusetts and Indiana all run the other way.

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/

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: Wis. Stat. § 895.045(1); Delvaux v. Vanden Langenberg, 130 Wis. 2d 464, 387 N.W.2d 751 (1986)

Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/895/i/045?view=section

Verified against: statute text of Wis. Stat. s 895.045(1)

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

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Wisconsin has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under federal jurisdiction the citation is issued by an OSHA area office and contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Federal OSHA does not cover state and local government employees, so a public employee injured on a public job falls outside it. Reporting deadlines are 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 (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.

A federal OSHA violation is not itself a violation of Wisconsin law, but it is admissible as evidence of a violation of Wisconsin's Safe Place Statute, § 101.11, which imposes a heightened non-delegable duty on employers and property owners. Wisconsin courts have applied that at construction sites: failing to instruct a jury that a safety rule violation was negligence per se, in a case about safety rules protecting a frequenter of a home under construction, 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 question in Wisconsin is whether the Safe Place Statute's duties reach the particular defendant and condition, rather than a statutory employer determination. Brandenburg v. Briarwood Forestry Services covers the inherently dangerous work exception to the rule that a party is not liable for an independent contractor's negligence.

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

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. 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: Wis. Stat. ch. 102 (exclusivity); Wis. Stat. § 101.11 (Safe Place Statute).

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

Distinctive state doctrine

The Safe Place Statute imposes a higher standard on employers and building owners than ordinary negligence

Wis. Stat. § 101.11 (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. § 101.11.

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