While the Miller Act does not provide a statutory basis for the recovery of attorney’s fees, this does not mean that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered in a Miller Act payment bond action against the surety and prime contractor. If the underlying contract between the claimant and its customer provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees, this can support a basis to recover attorney’s fees against the surety and prime contractor in a Miller Act payment bond action.
The Eleventh Circuit in U.S. f/u/b/o Southeastern Municipal Supply Co., Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, 876 F.2d 92 (11th Cir. 1989), held that a subcontractor’s supplier could recover attorney’s fees against the Miller Act surety based on a contractual provision between the supplier and the subcontractor. Other federal circuits have found similarly. See GE Supply v. C&G Enterprises, Inc., 212 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2000) (supplier to prime contractor entitled to recover attorney’s fees based on attorney’s fees provision included in invoices sent to contractor with each delivery); U.S. f/u/b/o Maddux Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 86 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1996) (surety liable to supplier for attorney’s fees and interest based on subcontractor’s credit application with supplier); U.S. f/u/b/o Carter Equipment Co., Inc. v. H.R. Morgan, Inc., 554 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1977) (finding that equipment rental supplier to subcontractor could recover attorney’s fees against surety based on contractual provision between supplier and subcontractor).
In pursuing a Miller Act action, it is good practice to look at the underlying contract, purchase order, or documentation forming the agreement to determine if there is a contractual basis to recover attorney’s fees. If there is, this basis should be specifically pled in the complaint against the Miller Act surety (as well as the prime contractor as the principal of the bond) to support a basis to recover attorney’s fees. This contractual basis should not be overlooked. In addition, suppliers and subcontractors on federal projects may want to ensure that such a contractual basis is included in their respective agreements in the event that a Miller Act action needs to be pursued. While suppliers will typically have a contractual provision in their agreement with their customer that allows them to recover attorney’s fees in collection efforts, there are circumstances where a prime contractor may not want to include an attorney’s fees provision in its subcontract. One reason for this may be because the prime contractor does not want to give the subcontractor a basis to recover attorney’s fees in a Miller Act action. Although this may not help the prime contractor in a lawsuit initiated by the subcontractor’s supplier (where there is a contractual provision for attorney’s fees between the supplier and subcontractor), the lack of a contractual basis could force a subcontractor to consider how it wants to proceed knowing it does not have a basis to recover attorney’s fees in its Miller Act action.
Please contact David Adelstein at firstname.lastname@example.org or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.