Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, Inc.

128 Nev. 371 | Nevada Supreme Court | 2012

enforcedCited 159 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

What This Case Means for Subcontractors

Certified Fire Protection bid on a fire sprinkler system for a warehouse project but refused to sign the subcontract because the terms differed from their bid. Work was never completed. Certified later sued for payment under quantum meruit (payment for work done even without a contract). The Nevada Supreme Court ruled against Certified, holding that a subcontractor cannot recover payment when no actual work was performed and no contract was signed, especially when design drawings are incomplete or installer-specific.

Key Takeaways

  • Never start work without a signed contract in place. If you do work without a signed agreement, you may not be able to recover payment even if the general contractor benefits.
  • Reject subcontract terms immediately if they differ from your bid. Delaying or refusing to sign while doing work creates legal risk and weakens your payment claims.
  • Incomplete or installer-specific design work has no value to a general contractor if you don't finish the job. Make sure your contract clearly defines what constitutes 'completed work' eligible for payment.

Design drawings are installer-specific and not useful to replacement subcontractor.

Nevada Supreme Court, 2012

Frequently Asked Question

Can I get paid for work I did without a signed subcontract?

Not easily. This case shows that courts will not award payment under quantum meruit (unjust enrichment) if no contract exists and the work provided no usable benefit. Always sign a subcontract before starting work. If you refuse to sign and begin work anyway, you lose your legal right to payment.

Related Cases

Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi

1992enforced

A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.

Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.

1999voided

Sovereign immunity bars subcontractors from enforcing equitable liens against the United States Government, as the APA's waiver of immunity does not extend to claims for money damages.

Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.

2010affirmed

A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.

Rice v. Pinney

2001enforced

A county court has jurisdiction to determine immediate possession in a forcible detainer action even when a concurrent district court suit challenges title, provided the possession determination does not necessarily require resolving the title dispute.

Benchmark Bank v. Crowder

1996modified

A third party may be subrogated to a federal tax lien and foreclose on a homestead, but must compensate a non-liable spouse for their separate homestead interest.

Brown v. Bank of Galveston, National Ass'n

1998enforced

Bank's acts were not the producing cause of Brown's damages and did not violate the DTPA as a matter of law; judgment for Bank affirmed.