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

Cross-checked a Nevada bank prime rate + 2%, approximated using the national prime rate against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately approximately 8.75 (reset Jan. 1 and July 1; uses the largest Nevada bank's own prime rate, not necessarily identical to the national WSJ prime used here as a proxy)%. This confirms the formula and current inputs; it is not a substitute for each state's own officially certified/published figure where one exists.

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.

NRS Chapter 691A (Property Insurance) and NRS Chapter 690B (Casualty Insurance) were reviewed section by section. NRS 691A.020(4)(b) requires insurers 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 this applies only to that specific manufactured-home coverage option, not to homeowners or commercial property claims generally. No other Nevada statute or NAC provision defining ACV methodology or restricting labor depreciation for general property claims was found. Nevada's ACV standard for property claims otherwise comes from case law (Richfield Oil Corp. v. Harbor Ins. Co. (1969); Sierra Pacific Power Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler (2007)), applying replacement cost minus 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-home provision is real and verified but is not a general property-claims ACV or labor-depreciation statute, so it should not be presented as such.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Nevada statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost policies was found.

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 on-point provision located; treated as no statute found rather than guessed.

“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/

RESEARCHED from scratch. J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 89 P.3d 1009 (2004) confirmed real via a national law-firm survey article citing it directly alongside comparable cases from Michigan, Connecticut, Iowa, Utah, and South Carolina.

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.

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 current year's exact wage base and rate tiers against DETR's quarterly newsletter or live employer page before use, since Nevada resets both annually. Confirmed exactly against the official Nevada DETR page (detr.nv.gov) and its December 2025 employer newsletter.

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/

The specific fact that Nevada is an NCCI state (rather than an independent bureau) was corroborated by general industry rating-bureau references rather than a single authoritative Nevada .gov page found during this research; the underlying NCCI relationship is well established but a direct citable Nevada state-agency confirmation link was not located.

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 direct Nevada Labor Commissioner prevailing-wage page could not be reached during this research (connection error to leg.state.nv.us); the statute number and threshold are sourced from the U.S. DOL's state summary rather than confirmed directly on a live Nevada statute site, and should be cross-checked there.

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.

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 case law is genuinely nuanced: the Nevada Supreme Court's foundational negligence-per-se case adopts a Restatement framework that explicitly allows administrative regulations (not just legislative statutes) to inform the standard of care, but a more recent federal case applying Nevada law states flatly that administrative regulations cannot support negligence per se specifically.

Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City, 99 Nev. 204, 660 P.2d 1013 (1983) (Nevada Supreme Court): adopts Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286, which allows a court to adopt "the requirements of a legislative enactment OR an administrative regulation" as the standard of conduct, subject to a four-part protected-class/protected-interest test -- this framework does not categorically exclude regulations like OSHA. However, Manley v. MGM Resorts Int'l, 2024 WL 4374059 (D. Nev. Oct. 2, 2024), a more recent federal case applying Nevada law, states that "a violation of administrative regulations cannot support a negligence per se theory." These two authorities are in tension; the practical resolution is likely that Nevada courts treat OSHA violations as admissible EVIDENCE of the standard of care under the Sagebrush/Restatement § 286 framework, while reserving the formal "negligence per se" label (with its stricter automatic-breach effect) for actual 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

VERIFIED, with an honest nuance flagged rather than smoothed over: a law-firm marketing claim from an earlier research pass this session (that Nevada treats specific OSHA construction standards as flatly negligence per se) is NOT supported by these two authorities and should be treated as inaccurate or at least overstated.

Third-party contribution against the employer

A third party who has compensated an injured employee CANNOT seek indemnity or contribution from the injured employee's employer or co-employee -- confirmed directly on point.

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/

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 109 Nev. 1096 (1993)) was wrong-topic -- that case is a negligent-security/premises-liability case involving a hotel-parking-lot shooting, unrelated to workers-comp. Replaced with the real, confirmed, directly on-point third-party-contribution-bar case.

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.

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

RESEARCHED and CORRECTED: the prior entry honestly flagged the exception as unknown, and its citation ('1999 Nev. 124 (2000)') didn't match anything. The real Meers case is 101 Nev. 283 (1985) -- confirmed real, though its actual holding is the 'normal work' statutory-employer test rather than the intentional-injury exception itself; both doctrines are now reflected here.

Distinctive state doctrine

"Statutory co-employee" doctrine confirmed by name with real controlling case citations: one of the broadest employer-side immunity extensions in this dataset; dual capacity doctrine confirmed NOT adopted in Nevada

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. This test has been directly applied and confirmed in a real construction case with facts now fully verified: 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.; meaning Nevada, unlike Maryland or Kansas, does not clearly recognize this 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