Opinion ID: 3047597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Richardson Construction, Inc. (“Richardson”) was the general contractor on a number of Nevada public works projects. Richardson subcontracted some of the work to Desert Valley Landscape and Maintenance, Inc. (“DVL”). Richardson also entered into an agreement with Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”) and its related entities, whereby Hartford agreed to serve as surety on a number of payment bonds required by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 339.025. Pursuant to these bonds, Richardson and Hartford agreed to be jointly and severally liable for “labor, materials and equipment furnished for use in the performance of [DVL’s] Construction Contract.” DVL was required to make payments to certain trusts administered on behalf of Local 872’s union members. However, DVL never made those payments, and the trustees brought suit against DVL. After DVL declared bankruptcy, TRUSTEES v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. 2713 the trustees amended their complaint to allege state-law claims against Richardson and Hartford. The trustees’ claims against Richardson were based on Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.150. Under section 608.150, a general contractor is liable for a subcontractor’s nonpayment of labor and materials. The claims against Hartford were based on Nev. Rev. Stat. § 339.035(1), under which “any claimant who has performed labor or furnished material in the prosecution of the work provided for in any contract for which a [statutorily required] payment bond has been given . . . may bring an action on such payment bond in his own name to recover any amount due him for such labor or material.” Since the trustees didn’t directly perform labor or furnish material, their claims against Hartford were premised on the theory that they “stood in the shoes” of union members who had worked on the projects. See United States ex rel. Sherman v. Carter Constr. Co., 353 U.S. 210, 220 (1957) (“The trustees [of union welfare funds] stand in the shoes of the employees and are entitled to enforce their rights.”). The district court granted summary judgment to the trustees on their claims. Richardson and Hartford appealed.1