Bond Claims – Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA

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 paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.)

In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract.

Several months later, no modification or change order had been issued, and Aarow submitted an invoice to Syska for the completed pond work. Syska instructed Aarow to list the pond work under a line item designated for certain finishing work on the project that had not yet been completed. The government denied the subsequent change order request (submitted by Syska), stating that the pond work was in the scope of the original contract and Syska withheld money owed for other aspects of the work to make up the difference for the previously billed pond work.

Continue reading Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

Reminder: Second Tier Subcontractors Have Miller Act Claim

Originally posted 2013-02-11 09:00:06.

English: Alexandria, Virginia U.S. Custom House and Post Office (1900)

English: Alexandria, Virginia U.S. Custom Hous... — English: Alexandria, Virginia U.S. Custom House and Post Office (1900)

Here at Construction Law Musings, we often discuss the Federal Miller Act and its Virginia equivalent (the “Little Miller Act“). These two statutes provide subcontractors on government projects (on which no mechanic’s lien can attach) the protection of payment and performance bonds.

One question that often arises in this context is which subs can claim against the payment bond. Recently, the Eastern District of Virginia District Court affirmed that a second tier subcontractor has the right to claim against a payment bond under the Federal Miller Act. In U.S. ex rel IGW Electric LLC v. Scarborough, the Virginia federal court considered the claim of an electrical “sub-subcontractor” which held a contract with the subcontractor to build cottages in Norfolk, Virginia for the U. S. Navy.

Continue reading Reminder: Second Tier Subcontractors Have Miller Act Claim

Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

Originally posted 2014-10-13 09:15:01.

Map of the United States District Courts in Virginia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have discussed both payment bond claims under the Miller Act and alternate dispute resolution (ADR) here at Construction Law Musings on many an occasion. A question that is sometimes open is what to do when there is contractually mandated arbitration for claims “relating to the contract or the work.”

While here in Virginia, as in most places, the courts will almost automatically send any breach of contract case with such a clause to arbitration, a question exists whether the claim against the bond held by a surety that is not a party to the contract is subject to being referred. Well, in a recent opinion the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk weighed in on this question where there was no opposition or objection to a motion to stay pending arbitration.

Continue reading Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

Originally posted 2014-04-09 16:16:54.

Here at Construction Law Musings, we are quite fond of the Federal Miller Act and it’s Virginia counterpart, the “Little” Miller Act. Both of these statutes allow a subcontractor or supplier on a government construction project the security to perform their work with the knowledge that a bonding company will back their claim for payment. These acts are necessary because a construction company cannot file a mechanic’s lien on a government owned piece of property.

As a general rule the Miller Acts impose almost strict liability on a contractor and its surety to pay for work performed by a downstream supplier or subcontractor. However, as a recent case out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear, this rule is not without exceptions.

In US ex rel Damuth Services v. Western Surety, et al., the Virginia based federal appellate court examined a side deal between a mechanical contractor and its supplier regarding payment for equipment supplied to a project in Chesapeake, VA. In the Damuth case, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the mechanical subcontractor (H & L) for full payment for other work unrelated to the Chesapeake project and for payments over time until Damuth was paid in full after finding out that H & L used payments on the project to pay for work performed elsewhere. Furthermore (and this was the kicker), Dalmuth agreed not to inform the general contractor of the agreement. H & L reneged on its agreement and Damuth sued on the bond under the Miller Act.

The Court stated that, in failing to inform the general contractor and surety, Damuth participated in misleading the general and surety. The Court found that, in light of H & L’s contractual and statutory obligation to pay Damuth from funds paid to it on the project, Damuth essentially agreed to accept payment under other terms in exchange for a promise not to “rat out” H & L. This activity kept the General Contractor from being able to deal with the situation and therefore the surety did not have to pay.

The take away? Always be honest with everyone when making deals outside of the contractual chain. I would advise that you, as a subcontractor or supplier, don’t make such deals on bonded projects or at the very least keep the general contractor and surety in the loop. By keeping the general contractor and surety in the loop, you avoid looking like you are in on the scam and also give the surety a chance to protect itself by paying you or at worst having to pay you when you have to make a claim.

As always, I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

Remember back in 2021 when I “mused” about Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al.? Remember how the Eastern District of Virginia held that mere supervision does not qualify as “labor” under the federal Miller Act? Well, the 4th Circuit recently weighed in on the appeal of that case and had some interesting things to say about the definition of labor.

As a quick reminder, Plaintiff worked as a project manager on a project to repair and upgrade certain stairs at the Pentagon. Plaintiff subcontracted with prime contractor Forney Enterprises Inc. on this project. On Dec. 20, 2018, the prime contract was terminated. Plaintiff filed the Miller Act suit on Feb. 5, 2020. Dickson alleged that Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, or F&D, must pay him, pursuant to the Miller Act, the amount he is owed for the labor he performed on the project. Now before the district court were cross-motions for summary judgment. In evaluating Plaintiff’s claims, the district court examined the defendant’s claims that (1) Dickson’s work did not qualify as “Labor” under the Miller Act, and (2) that the suit was not timely filed. The Eastern District of Virginia court agreed with both arguments.

Continue reading Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All