Thoughts on construction law from Christopher G. Hill, Virginia construction lawyer, LEED AP, mediator, and member of the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law

Category Archives: Bond Claims

Another Great Construction and Public Contracts Law Seminar Weekend

Originally posted 2014-11-10 09:36:14. As some of you readers know, I spoke at the 35th Annual Construction and Public Contracts Law Seminar (schedule is linked here) this past weekend.  Aside from the great and flattering opportunity to join my friend Hanna Blake at the front of the room to speak on the topic of payment bond

Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

Originally posted 2015-12-07 09:38:21. For this weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings, we welcome Surety Bonds.com, a leading online surety provider. SuretyBonds.com specializes in educating current and prospective business owners about local surety requirements. To keep up with surety bond trends, follow and Surety Bonds Insider blog and @suretybond on Twitter. Professionals who work in

Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

Originally posted 2021-06-09 14:43:40. It seems to be Miller Act time here at Construction Law Musings, not to mention in the Federal District Courts here in Virginia.  Last week I discussed what sort of work can form the basis for a Miller Act claim.  This week I am discussing the effect of a mandatory mediation

Don’t Let Receivership Kill Your Miller Act Claim

Originally posted 2013-01-01 10:00:19. In this economy, even the companies that provide bonding for construction companies may have financial difficulties, and even go into receivership.  Recently, the U. S. District Court in Norfolk, VA decided an interesting case relating to an interestingly named project.  In U.S. v. Western Ins. Co., the court considered the default

Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

Originally posted 2015-01-12 09:00:08. Previously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act.  The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if