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 of one such company, Western Ins. Co..
Continue reading Don’t Let Receivership Kill Your Miller Act Claim
Originally posted 2015-03-17 10:06:57.
Managing account receivables in the construction and building material supply industries presents unique challenges and unique solutions. This post reviews the industry-specific reasons why accounts will age and go unpaid, as well as the industry-specific credit and collections solutions available to controllers and credit managers.
Continue reading Why Accounts Age And Solutions For Construction Industry Credit Managers
Originally posted 2015-04-21 10:03:29.
The Court in U. S. ex rel Acoustical Concepts, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, et. al. held that, despite language in the General Contractor’s contract allowing set-off for obligations based upon “any other contract or agreement,” Miller Act claims are not subject to setoff based on non federal projects.
This is clearly good news for subcontractors on federal projects. The Eastern District ruling essentially states that the Miller Act and the standard Miller Act bond form trumps any private contractual language as it relates to non-federal projects. The Court did not go further and expand its ruling beyond non federal projects, but the Acoustical Concepts ruling adds another layer of protection on federal projects for subcontractors and suppliers that do not have the protection of mechanic’s lien rights because of the nature of the project.
I’d love to hear from sureties, subcontractors and general contractors for their perspective on this ruling.
Should you find this Musing interesting, please subscribe and join the conversation with a comment below.
Originally posted 2014-07-09 09:44:02.
In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion.
The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable.
What can we learn from this? 1. A “pay when paid” clause, on its own, does not create a defense to a Miller Act claim; 2. Read every line of a construction contract before you, as a subcontractor, leave a job site and refuse to come back; and 3. The Miller Act does not completely absolve parties to a contract from the terms of that contract.
In sum, the careful reading of your construction documents and the advice of a construction lawyer before making a big decision like leaving a job site can go a long way toward a successful collection action under the Miller Act.
Update: The 4th Circuit reversed this ruling and gave some more insight into the interaction between the “pay if paid” and the “prevention doctrine.” I “muse” about it in my November 28, 2011 post.
As always, I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.
