## Facts

- Donald E. Sprague owned a residential construction project and acted as his own general contractor.
- Sprague contracted with Keller for plumbing and the septic system.
- Keller engaged Eugene and Warren Seegers, doing business as Seegers Brothers Excavating, to perform excavation and septic-system work.
- Seegers provided labor and materials for septic systems installed on Sprague’s property.
- Keller later disappeared, and Seegers was not paid for its work; Seegers’ construction-lien remedy was terminated.
- Sprague asserted he had already paid Keller for the septic work and should not be required to pay Seegers as well.
- The trial court adopted as findings the complaint’s allegation that Seegers furnished labor and materials “at the special instance and request” of Sprague and entered judgment for Seegers for the reasonable value of the work.

## Issues

1. Whether a subcontractor may recover from a property owner in quantum meruit/implied contract for the reasonable value of labor and materials where the work was alleged and found to have been done at the owner’s “special instance and request.”
2. Whether the owner’s payment to the general contractor bars the subcontractor’s direct recovery from the owner under those findings.
3. Whether prior precedent limiting owner liability to subcontractors absent an express contract forecloses recovery on these facts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the judgment for Seegers.
- The court accepted the trial court’s posture treating the complaint’s allegations as findings, including that the work was performed at Sprague’s request.
- The court held Seegers could recover from Sprague in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the labor and materials.
- The court rejected Sprague’s contention that payment to Keller, standing alone, defeated Seegers’ claim.

## Legal Principles

- A subcontractor’s typical remedies are against the party who employed it and, when available, through a construction lien; however, direct recovery from an owner is not categorically barred.
- An owner is not liable on an implied contract merely because the owner received a subcontractor’s services, but implied-contract/quantum-meruit liability may arise where the owner requested and accepted the work as found by the trier of fact.
- Pleadings and findings establishing that services were furnished at the owner’s “special instance and request” may support a privity-like basis for quantum meruit recovery against the owner.
- An owner’s payment to the general contractor does not necessarily preclude quantum meruit liability to the subcontractor where the owner requested and retained the benefit of the subcontractor’s work and the subcontractor lacks a practical alternative remedy.

## Conclusion

The court held that, given findings that the owner specifically requested the subcontractor’s work and retained its benefit after the general contractor disappeared and lien remedies ended, the subcontractor could recover the reasonable value of its labor and materials from the owner in quantum meruit despite the owner’s payment to the general contractor.


Seegers v. Sprague, 70 Wis. 2d 997, 236 N.W.2d 227 (Wis. 1975)