Tag Archives: Miller Act

IS A MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND SURETY BOUND BY A DEFAULT OR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ITS PRINCIPAL?

Posted on by

Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal).

In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond.  The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor.  The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute.  Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor.  The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract.  Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal.  Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal.

Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Here, the trial court held that a default against the prime contractor does not preclude its payment bond surety from raising the liability defenses of the prime contractor (the principal of the bond).  In reaching this decision, though, the trial court indicated this ruling may have likely been different if a judgment, such as a default final judgment, had been entered against the prime contractor.   The trial court cited the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Drill South, Inc. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 234 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2020) where the appellate court affirmed a judgment against the surety because the surety was bound by the default judgment against the prime contractor.

To the extent that [the Miller Act payment bond surety] argues that it had no obligation to defend the action against [the prime contractor], we are not persuaded. We believe the issue is not whether the Agreement of Indemnity imposed an obligation on [the surety] to defend [the prime contractor], but whether it conferred a right to defend. The law requires only that a surety have notice and an opportunity to defend before it is bound by a judgment against its principal. We believe [the surety] had this right and opportunity, and simply chose, for whatever reason, not to exercise its right.

[The surety] argues, however, that when a surety and principal are sued in the same action, and the surety answers  and defends on its own behalf, the surety is not bound by a default judgment entered against the surety’s principal. Although we recognize the existence of authority supporting [the surety’s] position, those cases are not binding on this Court; nor do we find their reasoning persuasive.

We believe that the general rule that a surety is bound by a judgment entered against its principal when the surety had both notice and opportunity to defend applies whether the principal and surety are sued in the same action or in separate actions.

Drill South, 234 F.3d at 1237-1237.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

THINK TWICE BEFORE HEDGING A POSITION OR DEFENSE ON A SPECULATIVE EVENT OR OCCURRENCE

Posted on by

Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent.  Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action.  The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE.   The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown.

An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia,  U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract.  The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond.  The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays.  While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it.  The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”).   A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor.   The main problem for the prime contractor:  a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown.   To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative.  [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded.  In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

The prime contractor hedged its defense on the potentiality that it would receive a negative CPARs rating and, if it did, it would lose business with the federal government.  Based on this, the prime contractor decided to withhold more than $300,000 in contract balance over and above the $71,000 in delay damages it could prove.  The district court saw right through this argument by finding it wholly speculative and granting summary judgment in favor of the subcontractor for the subcontract balance over and above the $71,000 that the prime contractor did not have an objective basis to withhold.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

QUICK NOTE: MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND PRESENTATION

Posted on by

Recently, I put on a short presentation on the nuts and bolts of Miller Act payment bonds.  You can find the presentation here.   The presentation hits on key topics that are important to know for purposes of preserving Miller Act payment bond rights and defending against these types of bond claims.

The presentation was put on for LevelSet that, among other things, helps contractors and suppliers, nationally, preserve and maximize lien, bond, and payment collection rights.

For more in depth information on Miller Act payment bonds, please check out my e-book.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.Mil

 

TRANSFERRING VENUE OF MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND LAWSUIT PER MANDATORY FORUM SELECTION PROVISION

Posted on by

Many construction contracts contain a forum selection provision that requires disputes to brought in a particular jurisdiction.  A mandatory forum selection provision will use words of exclusivity, like “shall,” that unequivocally requires disputes to be brought in that jurisdiction.  On the other hand, a permissive forum selection provision will not use words of exclusivity meaning a dispute “may” be brought in that jurisdiction.  Where to file a lawsuit is an initial, important consideration.  (For a further discussion on how Florida deals with forum selection provisions, check this posting.)

Under the federal Miller Act, governed under federal law, lawsuits are to be brought in the district where the contract was to be performed and executed, i.e., typically where the project is located.  40 USC s. 3133.  However, this does not mean that there is not a valid basis to sue in another jurisdiction, or move to transfer venue to another jurisdiction, such as when the underlying mandatory forum selection provision requires a jurisdiction different than the where the contract is to be performed or executed.

For example, in U.S. f/u/b/o John E. Kelly & Sons Electrical Construction, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2020 WL 704899 (D. Maryland 2020), a subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit in Maryland against the prime contractor and prime contractor’s surety.  The federal project was performed in Maryland which is why the lawsuit was filed in Maryland.  The subcontract, however, required that lawsuits “shall be brought in Morgan County, Alabama.”  The prime contractor and its Miller Act payment bond surety moved to transfer venue from Maryland to Alabama.  The federal district court agreed to transfer venue finding that “as with any statutory venue provision [such as in the Miller Act], parties way waive its protections by agreeing to a mandatory forum selection provision.”  U.S., supra, at *3.

Mandatory forum selection provisions are given signifiant weight because this is the forum that parties bargained for prior to the occurrence of any dispute.  This is why examining forum selection provisions prior to filing a lawsuit is an initial, important consideration.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

SUIT ON SUBCONTRACTOR’S COMMON LAW PAYMENT BOND

Posted on by

When a subcontractor furnishes a payment bond, is it referred to as a common law payment bond governed by state law.  There is no federal statute (or even state statute in most jurisdictions) governing the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond, hence the reason it is oftentimes referred to as a common law payment bond.  This is different than a prime contractor’s payment bond which is generally governed by federal or state-specific statutes.

In an opinion out of the Northern District of North Dakota, U.S. v. Western Surety Company, 2010 WL 609548 (D. North Dakota 2020), the Court discussed a painting sub-subcontractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s common law payment bond on a federal project.    Here, the subcontractor hired the sub-subcontractor and a payment dispute arose.  The subcontractor furnished its own payment bond.   The sub-subcontractor filed a lawsuit against both the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond and the subcontractor’s common law payment bond.  The Miller Act payment bond dispute got resolved and the case proceeded as to the subcontractor’s common law payment bond.

The common law payment bond surety moved for summary judgment claiming the painting sub-subcontractor failed to properly trigger the bond because it failed to provide notice of its claim as required by the terms of the bond.   Since the bond is deemed a contract, the Court looked at principles of North Dakota contract law governing this argument.   The common law bond required a claimant to give written notice within 90 days of its last day of work (which is a common requirement in such bonds).  The surety wanted the Court to construe this language similar to the requirements of the federal Miller Act by requiring the sub-subcontractor to give it notice with substantial accuracy of the claim.  The Court rejected this sentiment, and denied the summary judgment, as the subcontractor’s payment bond made no mention of “substantial accuracy.”   The Court looked at a hodge-podge of communications finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the painting sub-subcontractor complied with the provisions of the bond.  Additionally, the Court noted that even if the notice was inadequate, the surety failed to establish how it was prejudiced based on North Dakota law that states: “A surety is exonerated…[t]o the extent to which the surety is prejudiced by an omission of the creditor to do anything when required by the surety which it is the creditor’s duty to do.”  U.S., supra, at *6 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Lastly, the Court discussed how the subcontractor’s common law payment bond mentions the obligee of the bond is the general contractor.  This is how all subcontractor payment bonds are worded.  However, within the bond, there is a definition for “claimants” that allows claimants to sue on the bond.  The Court addressed this to reflect that the painting sub-subcontractor, meeting the definition of claimant in the payment bond, was a third-party beneficiary of the subcontractor’s payment bond and had standing to sue the bond.

This is a good case if you are dealing with a subcontractor’s common law payment bond.  The requirements to sue the bond will be less rigorous than suing a payment bond governed by a statute, such as a Miller Act payment bond.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL TERMS (E.G., FLOW-DOWN, FIELD VERIFICATION, SHOP DRAWING APPROVAL, AND NO-DAMAGE-FOR-DELAY PROVISIONS)

Posted on by

What you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity.  This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to.   Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.”  Id. at *1.

This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project.  The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.   The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms!  So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters.

Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit.  The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions.  Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million).  Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner.  While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner.

Example #2 – The subcontractor also argued that the prime contractor should bear its remedial costs to the precast panels because it accepted its shop drawings for the panels.  However, the subcontract and prime contract (that was flowed down) required the subcontractor to obtain the approval of the prime contractor for the shop drawings before it started fabricating the panels.  The subcontractor did not have the contractual right to begin fabrication prior to approval.  The subcontractor, not uncommonly, started fabrication before the shop drawings were approved by the prime contractor.  But even if the subcontractor obtained the approval, the subcontract provided that such approval does not relieve the subcontractor of performing the work per the plans and specifications and the proper matching and fitting of its work.

Example #3 – The subcontractor claimed it incurred additional costs due to soil remediation from another subcontractor. This required the subcontractor to wait many months for the soil to be properly prepared before it could finish its work.  The subcontractor also incurred storage costs during this time.  The prime contractor argued that the subcontract contained a no-damage-for-delay provision that barred the subcontractor’s damages.  The trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, agreed that the subcontractor’s damages due to the delay were barred by the no-damage-for-delay provision it agreed to in the subcontract.

And, as the Court strongly concluded: “When parties, particularly sophisticated commercial entities like [prime contractor] and [subcontractor], negotiate and enter into written agreements, they have a right to expect the provisions of those agreements will not be cast aside when a dispute arises.”  Id at 6.    The Court started off and concluded its decision with the same principle

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

SERVING NOTICE OF NONPAYMENT UNDER MILLER ACT

Posted on by

Under the federal Miller Act, if a claimant is NOT in privity with the prime contractor, it needs to serve a “notice of nonpayment” within 90 days of its final furnishing.   In this manner, 40 U.S.C. 3133 (b)(2) states:

 

A person having a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing the payment bond may bring a civil action on the payment bond on giving written notice to the contractor within 90 days from the date on which the person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which the claim is made. The action must state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed. The notice shall be served–

(A) by any means that provides written, third-party verification of delivery to the contractor at any place the contractor maintains an office or conducts business or at the contractor’s residence; or

(B) in any manner in which the United States marshal of the district in which the public improvement is situated by law may serve summons.

Although the bolded language states that, “The action must state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done…,” courts have found that this requirement also applies to the notice of nonpayment.  See Prince Payne Enterprises, Inc. f/u/b/o Prince Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. Tigua Enterprises, Inc., 2019 WL 5394197, *4 (D. South Carolina 2019).

However, there is a certain liberality regarding the format of the notice as long as it states with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the work was done.

For instance, in Prince Payne Enterprises, a sub-subcontractor—not in privity with the prime contractor—filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.  To support that it provided a notice of nonpayment to the prime contractor, the sub-subcontractor attached a hodgepodge of documentation, none of which was applicable, to its complaint, as well as alleged that it demanded payment from the prime contractor within 90 days of its final furnishing date on the project.  The prime contractor moved to dismiss the Miller Act payment bond claim based on the inapplicability of the hodgepodge of documentation which included letters that came after the 90 days expired.  But, based on the allegation that the sub-subcontractor demanded payment on the prime contractor, the Court held:

While the dates and contents of the attached exhibits may not meet the notice requirements of the Miller Act, the court must accept the allegation that Prince Payne [sub-subcontractor] demanded payment from Tigua [prime contractor] within ninety days of last performing work as true. Discovery may reveal that this is not true or that none of the communications satisfy the Miller Act’s notice requirements; however, at this early stage of litigation, the court finds that Prince Payne’s proposed amended complaint sufficiently alleges a viable cause of action for a violation of the Miller Act.

Prince Payne Enterprises, supra, at *4.

This sub-subcontractor is likely in trouble supporting that it served a notice of nonpayment within 90 days of its final furnishing date.  However, it lived to see another day by surviving a motion to dismiss.  Summary judgment will be different.  This could have been avoided had the sub-subcontractor appreciated that to preserve a Miller Act payment bond claim, it MUST serve a notice of nonpayment within 90 days of its final furnishing.  Rights preservation is everything!

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

GOOD-TO-KNOW POINTS REGARDING (I) MILLER ACT PAYMENT BONDS AND (II) PAYMENT BOND SURETY COMPELLING ARBITRATION

Posted on by

Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative.  An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion.

In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond.  The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor.  A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property).  The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1)  collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law.

Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond

Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call.

A Miller Act payment bond is a bond a prime contractor gives to the United States (US) for a public project. Here, the contractor entered into a contract with a private developer for a private apartment project. There was nothing to suggest that the private developer was, in fact, the US government or an agent of the US government.  There was also nothing to suggest that the apartment project was, in fact, a public project.  The roofer alleged that it believed the US Department of Housing and Urban Development provided funding for the project. The Court found this allegation as a big so-what: “The Court finds this allegation insufficient to demonstrate either the payment bond was furnished to the [US] Government as required by the [Miller Act], or that the apartment complex was a public building or public work as required by the [Miller Act].” Rock Roofing, LLC, 2019 WL at *3.

Count II – Foreclosure of Construction Lien Against Lien Release Bond

The surety moved to compel the roofer’s foreclosure claim against the lien release bond to arbitration pursuant to the contractor’s subcontract with the roofer.  The roofer countered that arbitration was inappropriate since the surety was not a party to the subcontract.

The Court (relying on a Florida district court opinion I was intimately involved with) found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to compel the roofer to arbitration because the roofer’s claim for payment was based on its subcontract that contains the arbitration provision. “Because [the roofer’s] claim on the payment bond depends on its subcontract with [the contractor], the arbitration clause in the subcontract must precede [the roofer’s] right to bring suit as provided by the payment bond.” Rock Roofing LLC at *7.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

VENUE FOR MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND WHEN PROJECT IS OUTSIDE OF US

Posted on by

The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B).

Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States.  For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located?  A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question.

In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso.  The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work.

The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division.  The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue.  The court agreed and transferred venue.  Why?

Initially, because the project is outside of the US, the subcontractor could NOT sue the surety where the project is located.  Under the Miller Act, the venue provision was enacted for the benefit of the prime contractor and surety and, therefore, “the final site of the government project is dispositive of the [venue] matter.”  US ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC, 2019 WL at *4 (rejecting the subcontractor’s argument that venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim can be at a venue independent of jobsite activities.)

Therefore, to determine the appropriate venue provision (as the venue set forth under the Miller Act would be inapplicable to a project outside of the US), the Court had to look at general venue standards governing federal courts.  The Court adopted the general venue provision in 28 U.S.C. s. 1391 finding that appropriate venue would be “wherever any defendant resides or wherever a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC, 2019 WL at *4.

The surety resided in Tennessee.  However, the surety did not attempt to transfer the case to an applicable District Court in Tennessee, but instead, moved to transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia. The surety argued, and the Court agreed, that the Eastern District of Virginia is appropriate because this is where the government executed the prime contract, where the awarding agency is located, where invoices were sent, and where the prime contractor submitted deliverables.  The subcontractor countered that a substantial portion of its work occurred in the Southern District of Florida where it is located, making the Southern District of Florida an appropriate venue.  Unfortunately for the subcontractor, the Court was not buying this argument because the activities the subcontractor claimed it performed in the Southern District of Florida were in relation to its subcontract, not the prime contract, and were largely administrative or ministerial in nature – substantial performance did not occur in the Southern District of Florida.

The surety would have been able to transfer venue to the appropriate district court in Tennessee (where it resided) or Virginia (where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim at issue took place).

The subcontractor’s argument to keep venue in the Southern District of Florida was a worthy argument. However, the Court perceived many of the activities the subcontractor performed in the Southern District (coordinating, billing, phone calls, etc.) were not a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.  The Court was more focused on activities in relation to the prime contract, and because the prime contract and awarding agency were in the Eastern District of Virginia, that was a more appropriate venue.

Venue is an important consideration in any dispute, including a Miller Act payment bond dispute when a foreign project is involved and the venue provision in the Miller Act does not apply.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

QUICK NOTE: 4 ELEMENTS OF MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND CLAIM

Posted on by

 

 

A subcontractor on a federal construction project must prove the following four elements in a Miller Act payment bond claim:

 

1. The subcontractor supplied labor and/or material per its subcontract;

 

2. The subcontractor is unpaid for the labor and/or material supplied per its subcontract;

 

3. The subcontractor had a good faith belief that the labor and/or material supplied was for purposes of the project (and the prime contractor’s contractual scope of work for the project); and

 

4. The subcontractor satisfied jurisdictional requirements in bringing the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.

 

Notably, the  subcontractor’s performance will be determined in reference to the subcontract. This includes reference to the scope of work and the payment terms contained in the subcontract. 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.