Renting a License Number: Apex, Peak, and the Leaking Valley
Dan owns Apex Roofing, which holds a current Nevada roofing license, with Dan as qualifying party. Mike owns Peak Exteriors, which has no Nevada contractor's license. Dan and Mike agree that Mike's crews will perform residential re-roofs under Apex's license number, sign contracts on Apex letterhead, and that Apex will keep 6% of each contract price "for the paperwork." Dan never visits the jobs, never reviews the contracts, and does not supervise Mike's crews; Mike pays the crews. In June, Mike signs a $46,000 contract with a homeowner in Apex's name, and the homeowner pays $23,000 to Mike. The new roof leaks at two valleys and stains the homeowner's ceiling. Mike stops answering his phone. The homeowner calls Apex and is told, "you contracted with Mike, not us; we just let him use the number." The homeowner has a photo of Mike's truck, which reads "Licensed, Bonded & Insured - NV Lic. No." followed by Apex's number.
1. Who is the contractor of record here, and what violations has each party committed?
Read the worked answer
As a matter of licensing, Apex is the contractor of record: the license number, the letterhead, and the contract all point to Apex, and the work was performed under Apex's authority. Dan cannot accept 6% for the use of his number and then disclaim the work. The Board will treat the jobs performed under that number as Apex's jobs.
Apex/Dan: allowing another person to use the license, failing to supervise the work performed under the license, and aiding unlicensed contracting. The 6% fee is the proof of the arrangement.
Mike/Peak: contracting without a license, holding himself out as licensed (the truck signage), and performing work he is not licensed to perform.
The signage is not a side issue. Advertising a license number the business does not hold is a misrepresentation to every customer who sees the truck, and it converts a private arrangement into a public one the Board can document without any cooperation from Mike.
2. What remedies does the homeowner have against Mike, against Apex, and against the bond or the Residential Recovery Fund?
Read the worked answer
Against Mike: he contracted without a license, which exposes him to discipline and, importantly, generally bars him from collecting compensation for unlicensed work. The homeowner can sue for defective work and for the unlicensed contracting itself.
Against Apex: the strongest theories are that Apex held out the license, supplied the letterhead and number, and took a fee - so it is either the contracting party or liable for the acts done under its license. The "we just let him use the number" statement is an admission of the license-lending violation, not a defense.
Bond and Recovery Fund: both are tied to a licensed contractor's conduct on a residential project, so the identity of the defendant in any judgment is decisive. A judgment against unlicensed Mike is a poor fit for recovery fund relief, because the fund exists to compensate homeowners harmed by licensed contractors. A judgment against Apex fits the framework, subject to the statutory eligibility rules and caps. That is why the homeowner's lawyer should plead Apex in, not just Mike. Timing matters too: fund claims generally require a judgment first, so delay can cost the claim.
3. What are the likely consequences for Apex's license and for Dan personally, and what should Apex do now?
Read the worked answer
Expect a formal disciplinary action, not a warning letter. License lending goes to the core of the licensing system: the number is a representation that a qualified person is supervising the work, and renting it out defeats every consumer protection the statute provides. Realistic sanctions include administrative fines per violation, suspension or revocation, probation with monitoring and reporting conditions, and restitution to the homeowner for the cost to repair the valleys and the interior damage. A pattern of 6% arrangements across multiple jobs will be treated as an aggravating factor.
Dan personally is exposed because he is the qualifying party and the owner who authorized the arrangement; the Board can act against his individual standing as well as the entity's license, which affects his ability to qualify a future business.
What Apex should do: stop the arrangement immediately, pull the letterhead and signage, preserve every contract and payment record, cooperate with the investigation, and be prepared to fund repairs. What it should not do is repeat the "that was Mike's job" line - after taking a percentage, that argument confirms the violation rather than avoiding it.