CONDITIONAL PAYMENT BONDS AND TRANSFERRING A LIEN TO THAT BOND

imagesThere are two types of statutory payment bonds that can be furnished on private construction projects in Florida: (1) unconditional payment bonds issued pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.23 and (2) conditional payment bonds issued pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.245.

 

With an unconditional payment bond, an owner’s real property is exempt from construction liens from subcontractors and suppliers.

 

However, with a conditional payment bond, an owner’s real property is not exempt from construction liens from subcontractors and suppliers.  The conditional payment bond operates to condition claims against the bond to the extent the general contractor (principal of the bond) received payment from the owner.  If the general contractor did not receive payment from the owner, then the conditional payment bond does not apply.  If the general contractor did receive payment from the owner, then the conditional payment bond can operate to transfer the lien to the security of the conditional payment bond.

 

Because a lienor realistically has no way of knowing whether the general contractor was paid for their work, they are required to timely perfect their lien rights under Florida law.  This means serving a Notice to Owner and recording a construction lien within 90 days of final furnishing. 

 

Conditional payment bonds are fairly confusing so let’s use hypotheticals to explain.

 

Hypothetical #1:   Owner pays contractor for painting scope of work.  Painter timely served a Notice to Owner and recorded its lien for $75,000. 

 

The objective here would be to transfer the painter’s lien to the conditional payment bond since the contractor has been paid for this work. Under this scenario, the owner or the contractor can record within 90 days from the recording of the lien a Certificate of Payment to the Contractor certifying that the contractor has been paid $75,000 (full lien amount) for the work described in the lien.   The Certificate of Payment to the Contractor would be recorded with a Notice of Bond attaching a copy of the conditional payment bond.

 

If the contractor records the Certificate of Payment to the Contractor (together with the Notice of Bond), then the lien will be transferred to the conditional payment bond to the extent of the payment identified. 

 

If the owner records the Certificate of Payment to the Contractor (together with the Notice of Bond), the contractor can do three things: (1) record a Joinder in Certificate of Payment agreeing with the Certificate of Payment to the Contractor recorded by the owner, (2) record a Notice of Contest of Payment stating that the contractor has only been paid “x” amount of the lien; or (3) do nothing.   If the contractor does nothing or records a joinder in the Certificate of Payment, the lien will be transferred to the bond.  If the contractor records a Notice of Contest of Payment, the “contested” portion will remain a lien against the real property and any uncontested amount will be transferred to the conditional payment bond.

 

Hypothetical #2:  Owner paid contractor $50,000 but painter’s lien is $75,000.  Owner records Certificate of Payment to the Contractor for $75,000.

 

Under this scenario, the contractor may want to record a Notice of Contest of Payment within 90 days from the lien certifying it has only been paid $50,000.  If the contractor does this, the painter will have a $25,000 lien claim (the contested amount) and a $50,000 claim transferred to the conditional payment bond (the uncontested amount) since this amount would be transferred to the bond.

 

Hypothetical #3: Owner paid contractor for the painter’s scope and the painter liened.  Neither the contractor nor the owner recorded a Certificate of Payment to the Contractor together with a Notice of Bond within 90 days from the lien.

 

Under this scenario, the painter’s lien has not been transferred to the conditional payment bond even though the owner paid the contractor for the painting scope of work.   But, the lien can still be transferred to the security of the conditional payment bond even after 90 days and even after the painter files a lien foreclosure lawsuit.  The same procedure will still need to be followed with the recording of a Certificate of Payment to the Contractor together with the Notice of Bond. The difference is that the Notice of Bond must be jointly signed by the owner, the contractor, and the surety for the lien to be transferred to the bond.  See Fla.Stat. 713.245(4) (“Any notice of bond recorded more than 90 days after the recording of the claim of lien shall have no force or effect as to that lien unless the owner, the contractor and the surety all sign the notice of bond.”).

 

As you can see, conditional payment bonds can be procedurally confusing.  The key for a lienor is that it still must perfect its lien rights and record and pursue its construction lien.  The key for the owner and the contractor is that there are steps in place to transfer the lien or a portion of that lien (based on what the contractor has been paid) to the security of the conditional payment bond.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

 

A FORUM SELECTION PROVISION IN A SUBCONTRACT CAN BENEFIT A MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND SURETY

imagesThe recent opinion in U.S. ex rel. Galvin Bros., Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 2015 WL 5793346 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) illustrates when a forum selection provision in a subcontract can benefit a Miller Act payment bond surety.

 

The subcontract in this case contained the following forum selection provision:

 

6.4 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in consideration of $100 paid to the Subcontractor, the receipt whereof is acknowledged as part of the Subcontract Sum, at the sole option of the Contractor, any controversy, dispute or claim between the Contractor and the Subcontractor related in any way to this Agreement or the Project may be determined by a separate action in court or by a separate arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then pertaining, whichever the Contractor may elect in its sole discretion. The parties expressly agree that the venue of any such court action or arbitration shall be Boston, Massachusetts. Any award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with the applicable law in any court having jurisdiction.

 

 

6.8 The Subcontractor, on behalf of itself and its assignees, sureties and agents, if any, agrees that the dispute resolution procedure in this Article shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the Contractor and its sureties or assignees, and that such terms shall be deemed incorporated into any payment, labor and material or other similar bond issued by or for the Subcontractor regarding the Project.

 

Galvin Bros., supra, at *1.

 

The bolded language is key as this language is designed to allow the Miller Act payment bond surety to reap the benefit of the forum selection provision in the subcontract.  This makes sense since the prime contractor routinely defends and indemnifies its surety.

 

The subcontractor in this case sued the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety where the project was located.  The Miller Act requires a claimant to sue the surety in the federal district court where the contract is performed.  Notwithstanding, the surety moved to dismiss the action or transfer venue to Boston, Massachusetts in accordance with the forum selection provision in the subcontract.

 

The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit for numerous reasons. 

 

First, the court held that even though the Miller Act requires the lawsuit to be brought in the federal district court where the contract was to be performed, such “venue” can be modified by contract and, particularly, by a forum selection provision.

 

Second, the language bolded above in the forum selection provision allows the surety to enforce the forum selection provision in the subcontract.

 

Third, although all witnesses are located outside of Boston and are instead located where the project is located (and it would be more expensive to litigate in Boston), this alone is not enough to render meaningless a forum selection provision in a negotiated subcontract.  In other words, the subcontractor cannot demonstrate that it would be deprived of  a fair opportunity to litigate its Miller Act payment bond claim in Boston.

 

And, fourth, because the forum selection provision allows the parties to arbitrate at the sole option of the contractor, transferring venue would not be appropriate since the contractor / surety may elect to arbitrate this dispute.  For this reason, the court dismissed the lawsuit.  (To me, dismissing this action makes no sense other than to potentially create a statute of limitations argument when the subcontractor elects to re-file the lawsuit in a federal district court in Boston. And, to the extent the surety or prime contractor want to compel arbitration, they can certainly file a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the forum selection provision once the action is transferred.)

 

If you are a prime contractor, the bolded language is language that you may consider incorporating into your subcontracts so that your surety can enforce a forum selection provision in the subcontract.  And, if you are a subcontractor, be mindful of such a provision when electing where to file a lawsuit such as a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CHARTS AND GRAPHICS SUMMARIZING PAYMENT BOND AND CONSTRUCTION LIEN RIGHTS

 

imagesAs they say, a picture is worth a 1,000 words.  How about charts and graphics?

 

Check out this chart that summarizes preserving and enforcing construction lien and payment bond rights in Florida.

 

Check out this chart that summarizes Miller Act payment bond rights in comparison to Florida private and public payment bond rights.

 

Check out this graphic that depicts Miller Act payment bond claimants.

 

And, finally, check out this graphic that depicts those entities entitled to construction liens and payment bond rights under Florida law.

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

A MILLER ACT ASIDE: WHAT HAPPENS TO A THIRD TIER ENTITY IF A SUBCONTRACTOR FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY

Unknown-1The opinion in J&B Boat Rental, LLC v. Jag Construction Services, Inc., 2015 WL 237604 (E.D.La. 2015) provides interesting analysis as to a third tier supplier’s Miller Act claim.  In this case, a subcontractor entered into an oral contract with a supplier to provide self-propelled vessels (tugs) to move barges.  Of course, because it was an oral contract, a dispute arose as to the rental rate for the vessels.  The supplier served its notice of non-payment and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond surety, prime contractor, and asserted a breach of contract action against the subcontractor that hired it.   The supplier was seeking approximately $66,000 in principal.

 

During the course of the lawsuit, the subcontractor filed for bankruptcy and the case was stayed.  The supplier filed a proof of claim in the subcontractor’s bankruptcy that was objected to by the subcontractor.  An evidentiary hearing was held in the bankruptcy court where the supplier was held to have an oral contract with the subcontractor and owed approximately $44,000 in principal. Of this amount, the supplier was only paid approximately $3,000 from the subcontractor’s bankruptcy estate.

 

The supplier then moved to lift the stay in its lawsuit to pursue only its Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the payment bond surety and prime contractor.  The supplier was seeking the $41,000 balance in rental costs for the vessels it was not paid based on the rental value of the vessels determined by the bankruptcy court.  The supplier moved for summary judgment and the prime contractor and surety moved for a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

 

The surety and prime contractor contended that the supplier should not be able to pursue the Miller Act claim because the supplier’s claim was barred (by the doctrine of claim preclusion) because it received a ruling in the bankruptcy court and was partially paid on the claim.  The trial court dismissed this argument because what the supplier recovered in the bankruptcy proceeding (under a breach of contract theory) had no bearing in the supplier’s Miller Act lawsuit against the surety and prime contractor (other than, perhaps, any amounts the supplier received would offset any recovery against the surety and prime contractor). 

 

The surety and prime contractor further contended that they should not be bound by the bankruptcy court’s holding that an oral contract existed between the supplier and subcontractor and the liquidated $44,000 amount of the contract.  The court agreed because the prime contractor and surety were not parties to the bankruptcy proceeding and did not have the opportunity to litigate these issues. For this reason, the court denied the supplier’s summary judgment.

 

What does this mean?  This means that the supplier is not capped by the $44,000 amount of its contract determined by the bankruptcy court and could proceed in its Miller Act action based on its original $66,000 amount.  So, while the supplier lost the summary judgment, by doing so, it could technically proceed with more damages than it anticipated.  Sounds like a win! As it pertains to the surety and prime contractor, not only did they give the supplier an argument to potentially recover more damages, but how are they going to defend against the supplier’s claim?  The supplier furnished vessels that were utilized by the subcontractor in the subcontractor’s performance of the work.  The supplier clearly has unreimbursed rental costs.  So, without knowing any other defenses the surety and prime contractor may have, it is uncertain the value they get by trying to relitigate certain issues decided by the bankruptcy court.  Again, that could benefit the supplier.

 

ASIDE ON THE MILLER ACT

 

As an aside, the trial court provided a good discussion as to a claimant’s Miller Act payment bond rights, which is definitely worthy of reiteration:

 

Under the Miller Act, a contractor that is awarded a contract of more than $100,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public work of the United States must provide a payment bond to the government for the protection of all persons supplying labor or materials in the prosecution of the contract work. It was enacted to protect parties such as subcontractors or suppliers who work on federal projects as state-law liens cannot be applied against federally-owned property and traditional state-law remedies are unavailable. The Miller Act is highly remedial in nature and is entitled to a liberal construction and application in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects.

 

 

***

The elements of a Miller Act claim are: (1) the plaintiff supplied materials in prosecution of the work provided for in the contract; (2) the plaintiff has not been paid; (3) the plaintiff had a good faith belief that the materials were intended for the specified work; and (4) the plaintiff meets the jurisdictional requisites of timely notice and filing.

 

 

***

Under the Miller Act, a subcontractor can sue on the payment bond by bringing a direct action against the surety without joining the contractor as a party defendant.

 

 

***

The Miller act provides a federal cause of action for which the scope of the remedy as well as the substance of the rights created thereby is a matter of federal not state law. The liability of a Miller Act surety is controlled by federal law because determination of the extent of the liability involves the construction of a federal statute, the Miller Act, under which it was created.

J&B Boat Rental, LLC, supra, at *3, 4 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST COMMON LAW PAYMENT BONDS

imagesOn sophisticated construction projects (federal, Florida public, or Florida private projects), it is not uncommon for a prime (general) contractor to require that certain subcontractors furnish the prime contractor a payment bond.  When the subcontractor furnishes the prime contractor a payment bond, this bond is a common law bond because it is not a bond furnished in accordance with a statutory requirement.  Unlike a statutory payment bond (whether furnished per the Miller Act, Florida Statute s. 255.05, Florida Statute s. 713.23, or Florida Statute s. 337.18) there are no statutory prerequisites in order for a claimant to preserve rights under the common law payment bond.

 

For instance, if the subcontractor that furnished a payment bond has an unpaid subcontractor or supplier, these entities can pursue claims directly against the subcontractor’s payment bond instead of the prime contractor’s (statutory) payment bond. Thus, if the subcontractor’s unpaid subcontractors or suppliers failed to preserve their rights against the prime contractor’s (statutory) payment bond, they can still pursue rights against the subcontractor’s common law payment bond.

 

In USA f/u/b/o Vulcan Materials v. Volpe Const., 622 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1980), an earthwork subcontractor furnished a payment bond on a federal project (where the prime contractor would have furnished a Miller Act payment bond).  The subcontractor had an unpaid supplier of fill.  Amongst other claims, the supplier sued the earthworks subcontractor’s payment bond.  The Fifth Circuit found that not only was this payment bond a common law bond, but the supplier (bond claimant) was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute s. 627.756.

 

Florida Statute s. 627.756 provides:

 

(1) Section 627.428 (entitlement to attorney’s fees) applies to suits brought by owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract. Owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section.

 

Thus, even if the bond is a common law payment bond, an unpaid claimant can still recover their attorney’s fees.  Thus, the unpaid claimant gets the benefit of not having to comply with statutory prerequisites to preserve rights under the prime contractor’s payment bond and the recovery of attorney’s fees against a common law payment bond.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CONFLICT BETWEEN A SUBCONTRACTOR’S MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND CLAIM AND A PRIME CONTRACTOR’S CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT CLAIM

Unknown-1The recent opinion in U.S. f/u/b/o Marenalley Construction, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2015 WL 1137053 (E.D.Pa. 2015) is a great example as to what could happen when a prime contractor submits a Contract Disputes Act claim to the federal government that includes subcontractor amounts and then a subcontractor simultaneously pursues the same amounts from the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety. The question becomes should the subcontractor’s lawsuit against the Miller Act payment surety be dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of the resolution of the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim.  The ruling in this case held that the subcontractor’s Miller Act claim could proceed, and would not be dismissed or stayed, pending the outcome of the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim.  This was a great ruling for the subcontractor and obviously puts the prime contractor in an uncomfortable position, to say the least, since it becomes hard to dispute a subcontractor’s claim when the merits of that claim have been packaged (or passed through) to the federal government in a certified Contract Disputes Act claim.

 

In this case, both the prime contractor and subcontractor agreed that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) caused additional work that increased the cost of the work.  As a result, the prime contractor submitted a Contract Disputes Act claim to the VA that included claims and amounts from subcontractors.  While the prime contractor’s claim was pending with the VA, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety. This was a subcontractor that also had its claims and amounts packaged (or passed through) to the VA in the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim.

 

The prime contractor argued that the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim should be dismissed or stayed pending the resolution of the Contract Disputes Act claim.  In particular, the prime contractor argued that because the subcontract incorporated a dispute resolution clause (that incorporated the requirements of the Contract Disputes Act), the subcontractor was required to exhaust this administrative process before proceeding with a Miller Act payment bond claim.

 

Dismissal of  Miller Act Payment Bond Claim?

 

The ruling to deny the prime contractor and surety’s motion to dismiss the Miller Act payment bond claim was an easy decision.  To begin with, a Miller Act payment bond claim needs to be instituted within a year from the subcontractor’s last furnishing so if the court dismissed the claim it would potentially be depriving the subcontractor of its rights under the law without any certainty as to if the subcontractor re-filed the lawsuit it would be within the statute of limitations or the statute of limitations would otherwise be tolled.  And, pursuant to the Miller Act, a subcontractor cannot contractually agree to waive its Miller Act rights before the subcontractor performed any work.  A waiver of Miller Act payment bond rights is only enforceable if the waiver is: 1) in writing, 2) signed by the party waiving its payment bond rights, and 3) “executed after the person whose right is waived has furnished labor or material for use in the performance of the contract.  See 40 U.S.C. s. 3133.

 

Stay of Miller Act Payment Bond Claim?

 

The real determination was whether the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond lawsuit should be stayed until the completion of the prime contractor’s dispute resolution with the VA. The court held No!:

 

“The Miller Act entitles Marenalley [subcontractor] to bring suit ninety days after the completion of its work…not when and if Nason [prime contractor] recovers from the VA. Conditioning Marenalley’s right to recover from the [Miller Act] Payment Bond on the completion of Nason’s CDA [Contract Disputes Act] process would be inconsistent with the terms of the Miller Act.

***

Nason and Zurich [surety] protest that they will be prejudiced in the absence of a stay due to the costs of dual litigation and the risk of inconsistent decisions.  The Court is not overly troubled by these arguments.  Ordinarily the fact that a prime contractor has a claim for the same amount pending under the disputes clause of the [incorporated] prime contract, does not affect Miller Act cases.

***

The CDA process will determine the VA’s liability to Nason.  The VA, however, has no jurisdiction over the amount that Nason must pay Marenalley and no interest in how that amount is determined. Thus, a stay would subject Marenalley to a substantial, indefinite delay as Nason’s claim passes through the administrative process and court review, only to be left at the end of that process to begin again here to litigate its rights against Nason.”

 

Marenalley, supra, at *6 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

 

UnknownHow Does a Prime Contractor Account for this Risk?

 

So, based on this ruling, how does a prime contractor account for this business risk? And, this is a business risk because there may be value to a subcontractor to pursue the Miller Act payment bond claim rather than wait an indefinite period of time for the Contract Disputes Act process to resolve itself and then hope that the prime contractor pays the subcontractor the portion of the subcontractor’s claim that was passed through to the federal government.

 

Well, there is authority that would entitle the prime contractor to a stay of a subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.  But, this authority is predicated on language in the subcontract that any action filed by the subcontractor will be stayed pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

 

For example, in U.S. f/u/b/o Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland, Inc., 922 F.Supp. 597, 598 (S.D.Fla. 1996), the subcontract contained the following language:

 

“[s]ubcontractor shall first pursue and fully exhaust [the procedures set forth in the standard disputes clause of the primary contract] before commencing any other action against Contractor for any claims it may have arising out of its performance of the Work herein.”

***

“[Contractor shall] prosecute all claims submitted by Subcontractor under the contractual remedial procedure of the Prime Contract on behalf of and to the extent required by the Subcontractor.”

***

 “[Subcontractor] agree[d] to stay an action or claim against [the prime contractor’s Miller Act bond] pending the complete and final resolution of the Prime Contract’s contractual remedial procedure.”

 

Because the subcontractor failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the court dismissed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim.  Importantly, this case was decided before there were amendments to the Miller Act that now prevents a subcontractor from waiving a Miller Act payment bond claim prior to performing work.  Thus, if this case were decided today, the court likely would have stayed the Miller Act payment bond claim instead of dismissing it unless, of course, it was clear that the statute of limitations for pursuing a Miller Act payment bond claim would be tolled pending the exhaustion of the administrative remedies.

 

Similarly, in U.S. v. Dick/Morganti, 2007 WL 3231717 (N.D.Cal. 2007), the prime contractor and surety moved to stay a subcontractor’s payment bond claim based on the following subcontract language:

 

“If the Owner [GSA] and the Contractor [Dick/Morganti], pursuant to the General Contract or by agreement, submit any dispute, controversy, or claim between them to arbitration or some other dispute resolution procedure specified in the General Contract and such a matter involves or relates to a dispute, controversy, or claim between the Contractor and the Subcontractor, Subcontractor agrees …to stay any action filed by the Subcontractor until the dispute resolution and appeals process between the Contractor and the Owner is exhausted.”

 

The prime contractor argued it “intended” to submit a claim to the federal government [GSA] that will include the subcontractor’s amounts and, as such, the provision should operate to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim.  The court agreed provided that the prime contractor did actually submit the claim.

 

Thus, a prime contractor should absolutely incorporate language in a subcontract consistent with the language in these decisions that reflects that any action filed by the subcontractor, including an action against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety, will be stayed pending the complete resolution of any dispute resolution between the prime contractor and federal government that involves or includes the claims and amounts sought by the subcontractor. 

 

And a subcontractor, even if this language is included in the subcontract, should still move forward and timely file any Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

STAYING MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND LAWSUIT PENDING ARBITRATION

imagesIn a prior posting, I discussed how federal courts have discretion to stay a subcontractor’s lawsuit against a payment bond surety pending an arbitration between the subcontractor and general contractor.  This posting did not pertain to a Miller Act payment bond.  However, low and behold, this same rationale would apply to a subcontractor’s lawsuit against a Miller Act payment bond.

 

In U.S. f/u/b/o John Jamar Construction Services v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, 2015 WL 757858 (S.D.Tex. 2015), a subcontractor sued the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond.  The prime contractor countered that the subcontractor materially breached the subcontract causing it to terminate the subcontractor for default. 

 

The subcontract contained an arbitration provision and the prime contractor served an arbitration demand on the prime contractor.  The surety was not bound by the arbitration provision (as it was not a party to the subcontract) but moved to stay the Miller Act lawsuit pending the outcome of the arbitration between the prime contrator and subcontractor.  The federal district court agreed with the surety and stayed the litigation because the factual and legal issues between the prime contractor and subcontractor substantially overlapped with the subcontractor’s claims against the Miller Act payment bond surety.

 

Accordingly, if you are a prime contractor and involved in a dispute with a subcontractor where your subcontract contains an arbitration provision–such as in this case where the prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default–there is little downside in demanding arbitration pursuant to the subcontract.  If the subcontractor initiates a Miller Act lawsuit, there is authority that the lawsuit will be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

 

Conversely, if you are a subcontractor and involved in a dispute with a prime contractor where your subcontract contains an arbitration provision, there is upside in moving forward with the Miller Act lawsuit to ensure the lawsuit is filed within the one-year limitations period.  However, if there is concern the prime contractor will move to demand arbitration under the subcontract (as a means to stay the Miller Act litigation), you may want to consider simultaneously moving to demand arbitration against the prime contractor to preserve your status as the claimant (plaintiff) in the arbitration.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

 

CHART SUMMARIZING ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN AND PAYMENT BOND RIGHTS

Previously, I included a chart that summarizes the preliminary notice requirements for construction liens and payment bonds in Florida.  This chart focuses on steps a potential lienor / claimant must undertake to preserve lien or payment bond rights.

 

Now that the lienor / claimant preserved its rights to record a lien or pursue a claim against the payment bond, what are the next steps to undertake if in fact that lienor is owed money?  To follow-up on this preliminary notice chart is a chart that summarizes these next steps of enforcing the lienor’s / claimant’s rights against the real property (in the case of a lien) or the payment bond.

 

Download (PDF, 281KB)

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

THE DIFFICULTY IN RAISING EQUITABLE TOLLING TO JUSTIFY AN UNTIMELY MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND LAWSUIT

untitledPreviously, I discussed the statute of limitations for a Miller Act payment bond claim and the equitable tolling of the limitations based on a claimant’s late filing of a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.    

 

Another decision came out in U.S. ex rel. Walter Toebe Construction Co. v. The Guarantee Co. of North America, 2014 WL 7211294 (E.D. Mich. 2014), dealing with the exact same subject matter of a claimant raising equitable tolling to overcome filing a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit outside of the statute of limitations.   Understanding the statute of limitations for a Miller Act payment bond claim is vital to a claimant’s rights on a federal construction project because the doctrine of equitable tolling (of the statute of limitations) is not designed to simply allow a careless claimant to untimely file a lawsuit.

 

In this case, a sub-subcontractor was hired to install drilled shafts on a federal project.  The sub-subcontractor was owed approximately $500,000 and demanded arbitration with the subcontractor that hired it and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety apparently participated in the arbitration hearing and on the last day of the hearing the arbitrators dismissed the surety from the arbitration pursuant to the surety’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The arbitrators then issued an award in favor of the sub-subcontractor against the subcontractor that was confirmed by a Michigan circuit court.  The subcontractor failed to pay the judgment and the sub-subcontractor demanded that the Miller Act payment bond surety pay the judgment.  The surety (properly) refused stating that the sub-subcontractor failed to file a lawsuit within the one year limitations period set forth in the Miller Act.

 

The sub-subcontractor then filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit in federal court and argued that the statute of limitations to file a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit should be equitably tolled in light of the arbitration proceeding and the surety’s participation in the arbitration (until it was dismissed because there was no jurisdiction to bind the surety to an arbitration award).

 

A Miller Act payment bond lawsuit must be brought no later than one year after a claimant’s final / last furnishing of labor or materials.  Here, it was clear that the lawsuit was filed well outside of the one-year statute of limitations.  Appreciating this, the sub-subcontractor argued the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.

 

“Equitable tolling allows a federal court to toll a statute of limitations when a litigant’s failure to meet a legally-mandated deadline unavoidably arose from circumstances beyond that litigant’s control.  

***

To determine whether equitable tolling is available to a plaintiff, a court considers five factors: (1) the plaintiff’s lack of notice of the filing requirement; (2) the plaintiff’s lack of constructive knowledge of the filing requirement; (3) the plaintiff’s diligence in pursuing her rights; (4) an absence of prejudice to the defendant; and (5) the plaintiff’s reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the particular legal requirement.”

United States ex. rel. Walter Toebe Construction Company, supra, at *3-4 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

 

Unfortunately for the sub-subcontractor, its failure to file a lawsuit within the one-year limitations period did not fit into any of the equitable tolling factors.   The sub-subcontractor did not suggest, nor could it really, that it did not have notice of the statute of limitations to file a Miller Act claim.  The sub-subcontractor could not argue that it actively took steps to timely file the lawsuit, because it did not. And, the sub-subcontractor could rely on no law to support its argument that the statute of limitations should be tolled pending an arbitration; and, in fact, there is law that states otherwise. 

 

This case has important considerations:

  • It is important for a potential Miller Act payment bond claimant on a federal project to know what it needs to do to preserve payment bond rights including the timely filing of a lawsuit no later than one year from its last furnishing of labor or materials. 

 

  • It is important for a potential Miller Act payment bond claimant to timely file its lawsuit in federal district court to ensure its lawsuit is timely filed.  Even if a claimant wants to arbitrate with the party that hired it, it is still imperative that the claimant timely files the lawsuit to preserve its payment bond rights and avoid any argument that the lawsuit was not timely filed.

 

  •  Equitable tolling is a challenging doctrine, especially in the Miller Act context where claimants have statutory notice of their rights.  Claimants certainly do NOT want to be in a position where they are trying to rely on this doctrine to overcome the late filing of a Miller Act payment bond claim because it is more often than not a losing argument.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

CHART SUMMARIZING PRELIMINARY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIENS AND PAYMENT BONDS

In previous articles, I discussed preliminary notice requirements to properly preserve construction liens and payment bonds on private projects, payment bonds on public projects, and public payments bonds for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) projects.  Now, how about a chart that assists in summarizing this information:

 

[ws_table id=”1″]

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.