Providing notice to a general contractor
Does the Failure to Provide Notice to a General Contractor Bar Recovery Against a Surety? The Nevada Supreme Court in Hartford Fire v. Trustees of Constr. Indus., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 16 (May 28, 2009) recently held that a surety would properly dismissed from a lawsuit brought under NRS 339.035, a statute modeled after the federal Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 270b and 270c (1935), when notice was not given by the subcontractor’s employees nor the employee-benefit trust-fund trustees who were essentially third party beneficiaries of the subcontractor’s promises to make contributions for their employees. However, if the action was brought under NRS 608.150, no notice requirement was imposed. NRS 608.150(1) provides that:
[e]very original contractor making or taking any contract in this State for the erection, construction, alteration or repair of any building or structure, or other work, shall assume and is liable for the indebtedness for labor incurred by any subcontractor or any contractors acting under, by or for the original contractor in performing any labor, construction or other work included in the subject of the original contract . . . .