The Lapsed License and the Out-of-State Subcontractor

There is no general 30-day grace period that authorizes contracting after a Nevada license expires. The license must be active while the contractor performs work. Once it lapsed, Cascade was unlicensed for the period it continued, even if renewal paperwork was later submitted. That exposes Cascade to Board discipline for unlicensed contracting and may bar it from recovering compensation for work performed while unlicensed. The owner may also treat the lapse as a breach or default and terminate. The office manager's statement is not a legal opinion and should not have been relied on. Cascade should have stopped work immediately, confirmed the expiration in writing, renewed or reinstated the license, and negotiated a written resumption plan with the owner. Continuing for five weeks compounded the problem and created a record the Board can use in a disciplinary complaint.

A prime contractor must ensure that its subcontractors are properly licensed for the work they perform. An Arizona license does not authorize asbestos abatement in Nevada. By subcontracted work to CleanAir, Cascade allowed unlicensed contracting and could be disciplined for that, even if CleanAir's people were competent. Cascade may also face wage, insurance, and indemnity consequences. On the injury, the fact that CleanAir's foreman directed Cascade's laborers increases Cascade's exposure: the prime contractor controls the site and must maintain fall protection and a safe workplace. The injury is an OSHA matter separate from the license lapse, and the unguarded roof opening should have been corrected before any abatement work began. Cascade should report the injury as required, preserve records, cooperate with investigators, and remove CleanAir from the site until it is properly licensed.

Recovery is at risk. The strongest portion of the claim is work performed while Cascade was properly licensed before expiration; the weaker portion is the five weeks of unlicensed work. Nevada law limits a contractor's ability to sue for compensation when it was not licensed at the time it performed the work, so the owner will argue that the $95,000-and possibly more-is not owed. Cascade should first cure the license status, then provide a detailed accounting separating pre-expiration and post-expiration work, and negotiate. It should also address the injury and any cleanup or schedule claims, because the owner may offset them. If negotiation fails, Cascade needs counsel to evaluate whether any portion is recoverable and whether the Board complaint can be resolved through payment, corrective action, or a stipulated discipline. Continuing to demand the full amount without addressing the lapse is unlikely to succeed.