Construction Claim Rules in Nevada

Statutory interest rate

Floating, prime rate (largest NV bank) + 2%, reset every Jan. 1 and July 1

Both the prejudgment rate on an unpaid contract obligation and the postjudgment rate use the same mechanism: the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada, as ascertained by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions on the January 1 or July 1 immediately preceding, plus 2 percentage points, resetting twice a year until paid.

Compounding: Neither statute states compounding explicitly; treated as simple interest in general Nevada practice.

Citation: NRS 99.040 (prejudgment); NRS 17.130(2) (postjudgment)

Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-017.html

Last checked: 2026-08-25

The rate resets every January 1 and July 1 from the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada, as ascertained by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, plus two points. Use that figure rather than the national prime rate, which is only an approximation.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

Not date of breach: from the date the summons and complaint were served

When no rate is set by contract or otherwise specified, Nevada law runs judgment interest from the time of service of the summons and complaint until satisfied (interest on any future-damages portion instead runs only from judgment entry). This is a service-of-process date, not the date of breach itself.

Citation: NRS 17.130

Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-017.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same service-of-process rule as contract claims: not date of loss

Nevada's statute doesn't distinguish between contract and tort/property-damage judgments; the same rule applies, running interest from service of the summons and complaint (except for future damages, which run from judgment entry).

Citation: NRS 17.130

Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-017.html

Like Michigan, Iowa, Louisiana and New Hampshire's tort rule, Nevada ties interest to a procedural filing/service milestone rather than the date of loss, so pursuing the claim promptly directly affects how much interest accrues.

Actual Cash Value rule

Replacement cost minus depreciation

The Nevada Supreme Court adopted 'replacement cost less depreciation' as the ACV standard, later reaffirmed by a federal court applying Nevada law using the same formula.

Citation: Richfield Oil Corp. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 452 P.2d 462, 85 Nev. 185 (Nev. 1969); Sierra Pacific Power Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2407037 (D. Nev. 2007)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1969/5556-1.html

ACV statute or regulation

No Nevada statute or regulation defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts depreciation of labor for general property claims. Nevada's ACV rule is a common-law rule (replacement cost less depreciation) and the one statutory no-depreciation provision that exists is limited to manufactured/mobile home total-loss coverage, not property claims generally.

Nevada's property and casualty insurance chapters do not define an ACV methodology or restrict depreciating labor for general property claims. NRS 691A.020(4)(b) requires an insurer offering a manufactured or mobile home replacement value option to define replacement value as the cost to repair, replace or rebuild with new materials of similar kind and quality, with no deduction for depreciation, but that applies only to that coverage option. Nevada's ACV standard for other property claims comes from case law applying replacement cost less depreciation.

Citation: NRS 691A.020(4)(b) (limited to manufactured/mobile home replacement-value coverage only)

Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-691A.html

The manufactured and mobile home provision is narrow. It does not set an ACV rule or a labor depreciation rule for homeowners or commercial property claims.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Nevada statute or regulation sets the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on a replacement cost policy, so the policy terms control.

NRS Chapter 691A, NRS Chapter 690B and NAC Chapter 686A (unfair claims practices, including NAC 686A.680) were reviewed. NAC 686A.680 addresses total-loss motor vehicle settlement methodology only and does not address recoverable depreciation holdback timing for property claims.

Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-686A.html

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Void by statute for delays within the owner's control, on both public and private contracts, plus a common-law framework for other cases

Nevada voids, by two separate statutes, a no-damages-for-delay provision as applied to a delay that is unreasonable under the circumstances and amounts to an abandonment of the contract; is caused by the public body's or (on a private job) the owner's fraud, bad faith, active interference, or willful misconduct; or stems from the owner's decision to significantly expand the scope or duration of the work. One statute (NRS 338.485) covers public works; a second, separate statute (NRS 624.622) extends a similar rule to private construction contracts. The Nevada Supreme Court's own case law recognizes a consistent set of exceptions grounded in unreasonable, uncontemplated delay, project abandonment, bad faith or fraud and active interference.

Citation: NRS 338.485(2)(c)(1)-(4) (public works); NRS 624.622(2)(c) (private contracts); J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 89 P.3d 1009, 1015-16 (2004)

Source: https://www.consensusdocs.org/news/no-damage-for-delay-no-problem-exceptions-to-the-enforceability-of-no-damage-for-delay-clauses/

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for a written contract claim

Nevada's limitations period for an action upon a contract, obligation, or liability founded upon an instrument in writing 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: NRS 11.190(1)(b)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/chapter-11/statute-11-190

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New-employer rate 3.00% (2.95% base plus 0.05% Career Enhancement Program); experience-rated range 0.25% to 5.40%; 2026 taxable wage base $43,700.

Nevada assigns new employers a standard rate of 2.95%, plus a 0.05% Career Enhancement Program contribution, for a combined 3.00%. Once eligible for experience rating, established employers are assigned one of 18 rate tiers ranging from 0.25% to 5.40%, based on a reserve-ratio calculation (contributions paid minus benefits charged, divided by average taxable payroll over the prior three years). The 2026 taxable wage base is $43,700 per employee.

Citation: Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), UI Information for Employers

Source: https://detr.nv.gov/Page/UI_Information_for_Employers

Last checked: 2026-08-26

Confirm the wage base and rate tiers on the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation's employer page each year, since Nevada resets both annually.

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory rating state; workers' comp is written by private carriers, with no exclusive state fund (Nevada privatized its former state fund in 1999).

Nevada uses NCCI advisory rates and class codes for workers' compensation. Nevada is not a monopolistic state; its former exclusive state fund was privatized in 1999 (becoming Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, now Employers Holdings) and employers today purchase coverage from private carriers, subject to Nevada Division of Industrial Relations oversight, or qualify to self-insure.

Citation: Nevada Division of Insurance; NCCI Proof of Coverage program materials

Source: https://dir.nv.gov/WCS/Home/

Nevada's use of NCCI rates and class codes is standard in the industry but is not stated on a single Nevada agency page. Confirm class codes with your carrier or the Division of Industrial Relations.

Prevailing wage law

Nevada has its own prevailing-wage law (NRS Chapter 338) applying to public works contracts of $100,000 or more.

Nevada's prevailing wage statute, codified in Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 338, requires contractors on state and local public works projects to pay locally prevailing wage rates as determined by the Labor Commissioner. Per the U.S. Department of Labor's state summary, the threshold for coverage is a contract of $100,000 or more.

Citation: Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 338; U.S. DOL Wage and Hour Division, State Prevailing Wage Laws summary

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

The $100,000 threshold comes from the federal Department of Labor's state summary rather than the Nevada statute itself. Check NRS Chapter 338 or the Labor Commissioner's page before relying on the figure.

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: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.141(1), (2)(a) (comparison), (4) (several liability), (5) (exceptions, including product liability)

Source: https://nevada.public.law/statutes/nrs_41.141

Verified against: statute text of Nev. Rev. Stat. s 41.141

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

Full state plan, private + public sector

Nevada operates a full OSHA-approved state plan (Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration, within the Department of Business and Industry) covering both private and public-sector employers. A state plan must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may set stricter standards, so check the state rule before assuming the federal text applies. It also covers state and local government employees, which federal OSHA does not, so a public works injury is inside the state agency's jurisdiction. Citations are issued by the state agency and contested before the state's own review body rather than the federal commission, which changes where the file lives when you go looking for it. Reporting deadlines follow the federal rule: 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; NRS Chapter 618

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Nevada is unsettled: its negligence per se framework allows administrative regulations to set the standard of care, but a recent federal decision says regulations cannot support negligence per se.

Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City adopts Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286, which lets a court adopt the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation as the standard of conduct, subject to a four-part test on the protected class and protected interest. Manley v. MGM Resorts International (D. Nev. 2024), applying Nevada law, states that a violation of administrative regulations cannot support a negligence per se theory. The two sit in tension. The safer working assumption is that OSHA violations come in as evidence of the standard of care, with the negligence per se label reserved for legislative statutes.

Citation: Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City, 99 Nev. 204, 660 P.2d 1013 (1983); Manley v. MGM Resorts Int'l, 2024 WL 4374059 (D. Nev. 2024).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1983/14143-1.html

A law firm article claiming Nevada treats specific OSHA construction standards as negligence per se is not supported by either of these authorities.

Third-party contribution against the employer

A third party that has compensated an injured worker cannot seek indemnity or contribution from that worker's employer or co-employee.

Kellen v. District Court, 98 Nev. 133, 642 P.2d 600 (1982) holds that a third party who has compensated an injured employee cannot seek indemnity or contribution from the employer or co-employee, consistent with the exclusive-remedy provisions of NRS 616A.020. This immunity extends to 'principal contractors' (NRS 616A.285), who are considered statutory employers of subcontractors and their employees and are correspondingly immune from third-party contribution as well.

Citation: Kellen v. District Court, 98 Nev. 133, 642 P.2d 600 (1982); NRS 616A.020, 616A.285.

Source: https://www.behzadilaw.com/work-accidents/workers-compensation-more-information/

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Narrow intentional-injury exception requiring deliberate, specific intent to injure. Nevada courts set a high bar and draw a hard line against mere negligence, however severe.

Nevada broadly extends employer immunity to statutory co-employees under the 'normal work' test from Meers v. Haughton Elevator. To pierce that immunity, an employee must show the employer deliberately and specifically intended to cause the injury , ordinary negligence, recklessness, or even serious safety violations do not qualify. Separately, an uninsured employer that fails to secure required coverage loses exclusivity protection. 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: Nev. Rev. Stat. ch. 616A-D; Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 101 Nev. 283, 701 P.2d 1006 (1985).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1985/15857-1.html

Distinctive state doctrine

Statutory co-employee doctrine: one of the broadest employer-side immunity extensions in the country. Nevada has not adopted the dual capacity doctrine.

Under NRS 616A.210(1), all subcontractors, independent contractors and the employees of either are deemed employees of the principal contractor for Nevada Industrial Insurance Act (NIIA) purposes. The Nevada Supreme Court has directly confirmed the resulting extension: the NIIA provides the exclusive remedy for any employee of a subcontractor injured by the negligence of a different subcontractor's employee working for the same principal contractor, because they are considered to be working in 'the same employ' and are therefore statutory co-employees (Lipps v. Southern Nevada Paving, 116 Nev. 497 (2000), citing Tucker and Aragonez v. Taylor Steel Co., 85 Nev. 718 (1969)). Whether a given entity qualifies as a 'subcontractor' entitled to this immunity in the first place turns on the 'normal work' test from Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 101 Nev. 283 (1985), later codified at NRS 616B.603: whether the type of work is normally performed by the principal contractor's own employees in that line of business, except where the work is obviously a subcontracted fraction of the main contract. The test was applied in a construction case: in Orozco v. Thornton Concrete Pumping, No. 57364 (Nev. Oct. 4, 2012) (unpublished order), a laborer employed by GC Marnell Corrao at a Wynn Hotel construction project was injured by a defective concrete boom pump and sued the pump's operator, Thornton Concrete Pumping; the Nevada Supreme Court held Thornton was in fact a statutory co-employee, precluding the tort suit. In reaching this result, the court also confirmed Nevada has been hesitant to adopt the dual capacity doctrine at all, citing Noland v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., so Nevada does not clearly recognise that exception. A related boundary case, D & D Tire v. Ouellette, addressed when an independent contractor's actions fall within the scope of 'major or specialized repair' so as to prevent it from claiming statutory-employer/co-employee immunity; a jury found for the injured plaintiff in that case, showing the immunity has real limits when the work falls outside that scope. Nevada does not statutorily cap third-party damages recoverable in a construction-injury claim and uses modified comparative negligence with the standard 50% bar.

Citation: NRS 616A.210(1); NRS 616A.285; NRS 616B.603; Lipps v. Southern Nevada Paving, 116 Nev. 497, 998 P.2d 1183 (2000); Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 101 Nev. 283, 701 P.2d 1006 (1985); Orozco v. Thornton Concrete Pumping, No. 57364 (Nev. Oct. 4, 2012) (unpublished order); Noland v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (dual capacity); D & D Tire v. Ouellette (major/specialized repair boundary)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2000/32404-1.html