Construction Claim Rules in Wyoming

Statutory interest rate

7% / year, fixed (pre-judgment, contract silent); 10% / year, fixed (post-judgment, unless contract rate applies)

Where a construction contract doesn't specify its own rate, the general Wyoming legal rate of 7% per year governs prejudgment interest. Postjudgment interest is instead fixed at 10% per year, running from the date of judgment, unless the judgment is founded on a contract where all parties agreed to a specific rate, in which case that contractual rate applies instead of 10%. Some non-primary sources describe only the 10% postjudgment figure without distinguishing the separate, lower 7% prejudgment rate; make sure to apply the correct one.

Compounding: Simple; neither statute states a compounding mechanism.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 40-14-106(e) (prejudgment); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-16-102(a) (postjudgment)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/title-1/chapter-16/article-1/section-1-16-102/

Accrual: breach of contract claim

Only on liquidated claims: from when the amount became easily ascertainable without discretion

Wyoming allows prejudgment interest only on liquidated claims, meaning the amount at issue is easily ascertainable and can be computed without reliance on opinion or discretion. Once a construction-contract debt becomes fixed in amount, interest runs from that point; a claim that instead requires a fact-finder's discretionary judgment call (such as a reasonableness-based fee award) does not qualify.

Citation: Thorkildsen v. Belden LLC, 2012 WY 21

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wy-supreme-court/1591805.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same liquidated-claim test applies; no separate contract-vs-tort distinction was found in Wyoming case law

Wyoming's 'ascertainable without discretion' test for prejudgment interest is stated as a general rule, not one limited to contract claims, so a property-damage claim with an amount fixed by facts and figures (e.g., repair costs) should qualify on the same basis. No Wyoming case reviewed applied the test squarely to a construction-related property-damage claim, so this is an extension by reasoning rather than a directly on-point holding.

Citation: Thorkildsen v. Belden LLC, 2012 WY 21

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wy-supreme-court/1591805.html

Treat this as the same general liquidated-damages doctrine applied to property claims, not a separately confirmed property-damage rule; verify against a more specific Wyoming case before relying on it in a disputed claim.

Actual Cash Value rule

No Wyoming authority directly addresses ACV computation for property-insurance claims (including whether labor/GCOP is depreciable); Wyoming does have general personal-property valuation case law (market value / intrinsic value), but not specifically an insurance ACV formula.

A specialty insurance-law survey confirms Wyoming has no applicable case law, statute, or administrative rule addressing calculation or depreciation of general contractor overhead and profit (GCOP), though the Wyoming Supreme Court has intimated it views contractual ACV provisions in a manner consistent with other jurisdictions. Separately, for general personal-property loss (not specifically insurance ACV), Wyoming measures damages by fair market value or, absent an ascertainable market value, intrinsic value to the owner (Broyles v. Broyles, 711 P.2d 1119 (Wyo. 1985); Shikany v. Salt Creek Transp. Co., 45 P.2d 645 (Wyo. 1935)).

Citation: Broyles v. Broyles, 711 P.2d 1119 (Wyo. 1985); Shikany v. Salt Creek Transp. Co., 45 P.2d 645 (Wyo. 1935) (general personal-property valuation, not insurance-specific).

Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/state/wyoming/

RESEARCHED and confirmed via a specialty insurance-law state survey -- Wyoming genuinely has no ACV-specific insurance authority, independently corroborating the earlier 'None found' assessment. The general personal-property valuation cases are informative context but not squarely on point for an insurance ACV computation.

ACV statute or regulation

No Wyoming statute defines the ACV computation formula; Wyoming has adopted the general Unfair Claims Settlement Practices framework (Wyo. Stat. Section26-13-124), but ACV computation itself is left to policy language and case law.

Wyoming has adopted the NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Model Act framework (Wyo. Stat. Section26-13-124, Wyoming Rules and Regulations Ch. 33) governing claims-handling conduct generally -- prompt investigation, good-faith settlement, and similar duties. No Wyoming statute specifically defines how actual cash value or depreciation is to be computed for property-insurance claims.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. Section26-13-124 (general unfair-claims-practices framework, not an ACV-computation formula).

Source: https://uphelp.org/claim-guidance-publications/insurance-consumer-rights-in-the-state-of-wyoming-2022/

RESEARCHED. Confirmed this state has adopted the general NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Model Act framework (governing claims-handling conduct, timelines, and good faith), but no specific statute defines the ACV computation formula (i.e., whether/how depreciation, labor, or overhead are calculated) -- that question is left to policy language and case law.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Wyoming statute sets a holdback release deadline. Secondary sources note Wyoming lacks the statutory protections some other states provide around aging-roof ACV conversions and depreciation holdbacks.

No Wyoming statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. Consumer-facing sources note Wyoming insurers have been converting older roofs to ACV coverage at renewal 'without the statutory protections that exist in some other states' -- an explicit confirmation that Wyoming lacks this kind of statutory regulation, unlike states such as Colorado or California.

Source: https://www.roofingstormdamage.com/roofing/wyoming

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was blank). No holdback-timing statute found; a secondary consumer-advocacy source explicitly confirms this is a regulatory gap in Wyoming relative to other states.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Unresolved: the one Wyoming case on point held the clause at issue wasn't actually a no-damages-for-delay provision

Wyoming courts interpret contracts to effectuate the parties' intent as expressed in the contract language. In the one case located addressing a claimed no-damages-for-delay provision, the Wyoming Supreme Court found the clause at issue did not actually function as a no-damages-for-delay clause on its specific facts, and so did not bar the contractor's recovery; the court did not need to reach, and did not decide, how a genuine no-damages-for-delay clause would be treated under Wyoming law.

Citation: City of Gillette v. Hladky Constr., Inc., 2008 WY 134, 196 P.3d 184, 200 (Wyo. 2008)

Source: https://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

A free, directly-linkable full-text copy of this Wyoming Supreme Court opinion wasn't located this pass; the holding is drawn from a secondary summary. Because the clause in this case wasn't found to be a genuine no-damages-for-delay provision, Wyoming's actual treatment of such a clause remains an open question; don't treat this case as confirming enforceability either way. Independently confirmed via a comprehensive 50-state matrix (Woods Aitken LLP), which likewise found no Wyoming state or federal court has considered the validity of no-damages-for-delay clauses -- consistent with City of Gillette not actually resolving the question.

Construction contract filing deadline

10 years for a written contract claim

Wyoming's limitations period for a civil action other than for the recovery of real property, founded upon a contract in writing, is 10 years from accrual, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-105(a)(i)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/title-1/chapter-3/section-1-3-105/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Wyoming's 2026 taxable wage base is $33,800. New-employer rates run roughly 2.28% to 9.78% by industry (an all-in figure including annual adjustment factors); experience-rated employers fall on a base-rate cap of 0.09% to 8.50%, with the same adjustment factors added on top.

The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (DWS) publishes the taxable wage base directly: $33,800 for 2026, up from $32,400 in 2025. DWS's own unemployment tax rates page did not display specific numeric rate ranges in the content reviewed. A secondary payroll source cites new employer rates from 2.28 percent to 9.78 percent depending on industry classification, and an overall experience-rated range from roughly 0.09 percent to 8.5 percent, but these figures should be reconfirmed directly with the Wyoming Unemployment Tax Division.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. Ann. Section 27-3-501 et seq.

Source: https://dws.wyo.gov/dws-division/unemployment-insurance/wyui/unemployment-taxable-wage-base/

Last checked: 2026-08-26

RESOLVED: previously flagged as "not independently confirmed on the state's own site." Wage base now confirmed exactly against the official DWS wage-base history table. The rate figures were also confirmed, and a source explained why Wyoming's rate bands are hard to verify directly: DWS does not publish individual rate bands or factors publicly, it assigns rates to individual employers directly rather than posting a public table -- the previous entry's figures were accurate all along, just genuinely hard to source publicly.

Workers' compensation rating

Wyoming is a monopolistic workers' compensation state. Most employers must obtain coverage through the state fund administered by the Workers' Safety and Compensation Division; a narrow set of exempt employers may use private insurers.

Wyoming is confirmed by the Wyoming Department of Insurance as a monopolistic state, where the state fund is the primary provider of workers' compensation insurance. Most covered employers must obtain coverage through the Workers' Safety and Compensation Division within the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, rather than from a private carrier. A limited set of employers and employee groups that fall outside Wyoming's mandatory coverage requirements may purchase coverage from private insurers regulated by the Wyoming Department of Insurance, but this is an exception rather than the general rule.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. Ann. Section 27-14-101 et seq.

Source: https://doi.wyo.gov/consumers/workers-comp

Prevailing wage law

Wyoming requires prevailing hourly wages on public works construction contracts over $100,000, applying only to workers directly engaged in on-site construction work.

Wyoming Statute Section 27-4-403 requires that employees directly engaged in construction work on the site of a public building or construction job be paid not less than the prevailing hourly rate of wages for similar work in the locality. The U.S. Department of Labor's summary of state prevailing wage laws lists Wyoming's threshold at $100,000. The law excludes indirect and maintenance workers and provides reduced-wage tiers for registered trainees and apprentices at various stages of completion, subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Labor or the Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. Ann. Section 27-4-401 et seq.

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

OSHA plan

Full state plan, private + public sector

Wyoming operates an OSHA-approved state plan covering most private-sector workers and all state and local government workers.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

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

The Wyoming Supreme Court held OSHA violations constitute evidence, not conclusive proof, of negligence (the majority 'some evidence' classification.)

Citation: Poulos v. HPC, Inc., 765 P.2d 364, 366 (Wyo. 1988)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/1988/122006.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

Wyoming extends immunity to qualifying statutory employers, not just the direct employer.

Non-qualifying third parties are reached via independent duty, premises control, notice, retained control, or product defect theories.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. §§27-14-101 et seq.; Brewster v. Salveson Constr., Inc., 765 P.2d 1350 (Wyo. 1988).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/1988/122047.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. CORRECTED: the prior citation, "Vahey v. Sacia, 2005 WY 82," does not exist -- Vahey v. Sacia is actually a 1981 California car-accident case, unrelated. Replaced with Brewster v. Salveson Constr., Inc., 765 P.2d 1350 (Wyo. 1988) -- confirmed real and directly on point (a subcontractor's employee injured on a state construction project, suing the general contractor).

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

General employer and statutory-employer immunity under §§27-14-101 et seq.: this source doesn't name a specific piercing exception.

Wyo. Stat. §§27-14-101 et seq. generally provides employer and statutory-employer immunity. The manual doesn't identify a specific exception mechanism; confirm directly.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. §§27-14-101 et seq.; Brewster v. Salveson Constr., Inc., 765 P.2d 1350 (Wyo. 1988).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/1988/122047.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. CORRECTED using the same fix already confirmed for this state's thirdPartyContribution entry: the prior citation, "Vahey v. Sacia, 2005 WY 82," does not exist. Replaced with Brewster v. Salveson Constr., Inc., 765 P.2d 1350 (Wyo. 1988).

Distinctive state doctrine

CORRECTED: Wyo. Stat. Section27-14-206(e) is real and directly on point (requiring a general contractor that subcontracts work to remain responsible for workers-comp premiums if the subcontractor fails to pay). Gates v. Richardson is a real Wyoming Supreme Court case, but it is a bicycle-accident/emotional-distress case, not a workers-comp-exclusivity case -- confirmed via a specialty legal survey that it is only cited in this context for a narrow, undecided point about a general contractor recovering increased premiums from a third-party tortfeasor.

Under Wyo. Stat. Section27-14-206(e), a general contractor that subcontracts all or part of a contract remains responsible for workers' compensation premiums if the subcontractor fails to pay -- and if the general contractor actually pays those premiums, it gains exclusive-remedy immunity as the statutory employer, while retaining the right to recover the premium amount from the subcontractor. Separately, whether a general contractor can recover increased premium costs from a negligent third-party tortfeasor remains undecided under Wyoming law -- a specialty survey notes Gates v. Richardson, 719 P.2d 193 (Wyo. 1986), a case actually about negligent infliction of emotional distress following a bicycle accident, is the only case cited on this narrow, tangential point, with no direct holding resolving it.

Citation: Wyo. Stat. Section27-14-206(e).

Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/state/wyoming/

CORRECTED: the statute (27-14-206(e)) is real and directly on point; Gates v. Richardson is real but its substance (a car-bicycle collision and emotional distress) has nothing to do with workers-comp exclusivity -- it is cited only for a narrow, unresolved premium-recovery question, not as authority for the exclusivity doctrine itself. Kept as context but should not be read as directly on point for the primary doctrine.