After a week off from posting, much of it dealing with payment bond claims, I am back with a basic, but necessary refresher on these claims. A payment bond on a construction project (whether private or public) gives an unpaid subcontractor or supplier another collection option outside of a breach of contract action, or in
So, here you are, a general contractor, subcontractor or supplier and you haven’t been paid. You know you should be paid and are at the end of your rope after what seem like hundreds of demands by phone and e-mail. You’re ready to file a claim and try and get paid. Simple enough, right? Not
I have often discussed construction payment bond claims from the perspective of the subcontractor or supplier making the claim. However, a recent case (that I only have the Virginia Lawyers Weekly link for) discusses the potential dire consequences of such a claim for a payment bond principal and any guarantor under that bond. In Hanover
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often discussed payment bond claims under the federal Miller Act and its state specific analogs (so called “Little Miller Acts“). Most of these discussions have assumed without actually stating that the surety carrying the payment bond would be solvent and available to pay any judgment against it. Unfortunately,
I know, this title is yet another seemingly obvious statement in a series of them here at Construction Law Musings. I seem to be going from cliche to cliche these days and musing on things from necessary evils to naming the correct parties in a lawsuit. However a recent post from my fellow “blawger” and