DO NOT EXECUTE A WAIVER AND RELEASE IN CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT THAT RELEASES CLAIMS YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO RELEASE

Posted on March 13, 2016March 13, 2016 by Edward Garber

Absolutely do NOT execute a waiver and release in consideration of a progress payment that waives and releases claims (such as change order requests, lost productivity, or delay) that you are not prepared to release through the date of the release. Carve out such exceptions from the release—identify those claims or rights you are not prepared to release. Otherwise, when you go to pursue such claims, the waiver and release you previously executed will come back to haunt you!

For example, in U.S. f/u/b/o Chasney and Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 2016 WL 852730 D.Md. 2016), a prime contractor on a federal project subcontracted with a mechanical and plumbing subcontractor. The subcontractor’s last partial waiver and release it executed in consideration of a progress payment was in November 2013 for payment through October 31, 2013. The waiver and release provided that the subcontractor waived and released all liens, claims, and demands against the prime contractor or its surety in connection with the project through the period covered by the payment (through October 31, 2013). The waiver and release included space for the subcontractor to identify exceptions. No such exceptions were identified. In fact, prior to November 2013, the subcontractor executed a total of 24 progress waivers and releases and never excepted a single item or claim from the release.

Notwithstanding, the subcontractor encountered design defects that caused it to incur additional costs and delayed its performance. The subcontractor asserted pass-through claims that the prime contractor submitted to the federal government. However, when the prime contractor and government settled their issues and a global settlement was reached, no amounts were assigned to respective items such as the subcontractor’s pass-through claims. The subcontractor then asserted the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety.

Applicable here, the surety and prime moved for summary judgment that any damages, including delay-related damages, that the subcontractor sought through October 31, 2013 were waived and released through the subcontractor’s November 2013 progress waiver and release. The District Court of Maryland agreed since all it had to look to was the last waiver and release the subcontractor executed where it waived and released such rights:

“By executing the October 31 Partial Release without exempting its claim, Chasney [subcontractor] relinquished its right to pursue the claim should it ever ripen. In hindsight, Chasney may regret its decision to sign such a release—but the Court’s task is to examine the agreement the parties did sign, not the agreement that one or the other now wishes they had negotiated instead….

***

In summary, the Court’s analysis begins and ends—as it must—with the unambiguous language of the Partial Releases. By signing each release, Chasney waived all claims relating to work performed through the covered period: no reasonable factfinder could conclude otherwise. While Chasney’s opposition brief teems with subtle linguistic maneuvers (and more than a few red herrings), Chasney cannot avoid the plain consequences of its contracting through artful argument….”

U.S. f/u/b/o Chasney & Company, 2016 WL at *7, 9 (internal quotations omitted).

Do NOT let this happen to you. Preserve your rights and claims and do NOT waive and release claims you are NOT prepared to release!

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.

QUICK NOTE: DON’T NEGLECT CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO PAYMENT IN YOUR CONTRACT

Posted on February 29, 2016February 29, 2016 by Edward Garber

There is a good chance your contract contains conditions precedent to payment. Such conditions precedent to payment include waivers and releases of lien (and, perhaps, claims) and contractually required warranties. Make sure to comply with conditions precedent to payment!

In a case where a subcontractor sued a payment bond surety, the court held the subcontractor’s lawsuit was premature because the subcontractor did not comply with a condition precedent to payment, that being the submission of a release in satisfactory form. Until such condition precedent was satisfied, payment was not due and owing the subcontractor.

SUBCONTRACTORS MAY (LIKELY) BE REQUIRED TO STAY THEIR MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND CLAIMS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT RESOLUTION PROCESS

Posted on February 18, 2016February 18, 2016 by Edward Garber

If you are a subcontractor on federal construction projects, the opinion by the District Court of Alaska in U.S. f/u/b/o Brice Environmental Services Corp. v. Bhate Environmental Associates, Inc., 2016 WL 544406 (D.Alaska 2016), provides an interesting or not-so-interesting outlook on subcontractors that participate (perhaps by choice) in the request for equitable adjustment (REA) and Contract Disputes Act dispute resolution process. (See this article for more on this outlook that creates a conflict between a subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond rights and a prime contractor’s participation in the Contract Disputes Act dispute resolution process.)

In this matter, a soil remediation subcontractor submitted an REA to the prime contractor for approximately $3 Million associated with the prime contractor’s standby and additional work directives. The subcontractor claimed that most of the REA was unrelated to issues caused by the owner, but rather, caused by the prime contractor. The subcontractor and prime contractor agreed to a mutual termination of the subcontractor and the subcontractor reduced its REA to approximately $1.1 Million (to include only incurred costs versus anticipated costs). The prime contractor then submitted a change order request to the federal government. The subcontractor shortly thereafter sued the prime contractor and its Miller Act payment bond surety.

The prime contractor and its Miller Act payment bond surety moved to stay the lawsuit pending the completion a Contract Disputes Act resolution and, if required, completion of arbitration thereafter. The subcontractor did not oppose staying its Miller Act payment bond claim pending arbitration with the prime contractor, but opposed staying the case pending the resolution of the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act claim. However, the subcontractor acknowledged that claims attributable to the federal government are passed through to the government and that the subcontractor shall not maintain any proceeding against the prime contractor with respect to government-related (owner) claims until resolution of Contract Dispute Act claims. Moreover, the subcontract provided for the completion of the Contract Disputes Act resolution process between the prime contractor and federal government before the subcontractor could maintain any proceeding against the prime contractor in connection with any omission, default, or act by the federal government.

Here, the subcontractor could not establish that the federal government’s acts did not contribute to its claims against the prime contractor; and, the prime contractor submitted a change order to the federal government that included the subcontractor’s costs supporting its position that the federal government’s acts were connected to the subcontractor’s claim. Nonetheless, the subcontractor argued it would be unfair if it had to bear the brunt of waiting for the resolution of any Contract Disputes Act claim between the prime contractor and federal government before the subcontractor could pursue its claim against the prime contractor. The Court dismissed this argument and stayed the action pending the outcome of the Contract Disputes Act resolution process between the prime contractor and federal government expounding:

The economic strain of awaiting resolution of the CDA procedures between Defendant Bhate [prime contractor] and AFCEC [federal government] is, while burdensome, still a reasonably foreseeable event under the Subcontract. Furthermore, denying the Motion to Stay and allowing this matter to proceed would bifurcate the matter, creating parallel proceedings involving many of the same facts and witnesses. Additionally, it could potentially force Defendants [prime contractor and surety] to take inconsistent positions in the simultaneous proceedings, supporting Plaintiff’s claims against AFCEC while defending against them in the arbitration between the parties. An order staying this matter is supported not only by the contract, but also the promotion of judicial economy and efficiency.

Bhate Environmental Associates, supra, at *4.

This is undoubtedly a harsh ruling for a subcontractor that is now forced to wait a potentially long time while the prime contractor participates in the Contract Disputes Act resolution process. While harsh, the subcontractor agreed to bear this risk in its subcontract. And, from the Court’s rationale, even if the subcontractor did not bear this risk, the Court still found that staying the subcontractor’s claims promoted judicial economy since it prevented the prime contractor from dealing with simultaneous disputes (one with the subcontractor and another with the federal government) and taking inconsistent positions.

From the prime contractor’s perspective, this language that requires the subcontractor to bear this risk and stay any dispute pending the outcome of the Contract Disputes Act resolution process is extremely important language (based on the precise reasoning by the Court quoted above).

From the subcontractor’s perspective, this reinforces the notion that it is imperative for parties to appreciate the risks they are agreeing to in their contracts, particularly as it relates to the resolution of disputes. Also, this reinforces the risk that a subcontractor performing federal construction work may have to bear irrespective of the subcontract.

Although the subcontractor is now in a wait-and-see mode while the Contract Disputes Act process runs its course, the subcontractor was smart by perfecting its Miller Act payment bond rights by timely filing suit. Even though the prime contractor’s Contract Disputes Act resolution process may take some time, the prime contractor and its payment bond surety will ultimately have to deal with this dispute if the outcome of its Contract Disputes Act claim does not fully resolve the subcontractor’s claim to the subcontractor’s satisfaction.

TIMELY FILE YOUR MILLER ACT PAYMENT BOND LAWSUIT

Posted on January 15, 2016January 15, 2016 by Edward Garber

If you are a subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or supplier on a federal construction project, please make sure to preserve your Miller Act payment bond rights. This includes filing suit in a federal district court against the payment bond surety. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Thomas v. Burkhardt, 2016 WL 143351 (11^th Cir. 2016) illustrates what can happen if you do not properly pursue your Miller Act payment bond rights.

In Thomas, a subcontractor sued a contractor in state court and recovered a judgment against the contractor. When the subcontractor could not collect on its judgment, it sued the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety. The problem was the subcontractor filed its lawsuit many years after the statute of limitations expired on the Miller Act. The subcontractor argued the contractor’s surety should be bound by the state court judgment against the contractor (the principal of the payment bond). The Eleventh Circuit said “No!” The surety was not bound by the state court judgment. Indeed, even if the surety had notice of the subcontractor’s state court suit against the contractor, the Eleventh Circuit still maintained that the surety would not be bound by the state court judgment and would not be estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense:

[T]he doctrine of estoppel against the surety rests on the principle that a surety with knowledge of a suit against the principal has a “full opportunity to defend” the suit and to protect its rights. But there is no such equitable principle at work here. The surety cannot protect its rights by joining in the defense of the suit. It cannot intervene as defendant any more than it could be named as defendant in the first place.

Thomas, supra, at *3 quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hendry Corp., 391 F.2d 13, 17 (5^th Cir. 1968).

The morale is to timely file your Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety. There is no reason not to!

WHAT TO DO IF THE PAYMENT BOND IS NOT RECORDED WITH THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT

Posted on November 20, 2015November 20, 2015 by Edward Garber

There is an unconditional payment bond for the project but it was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement. Now there are subcontractor construction liens recorded against the property. What do I do? I thought the point of the payment bond was to exempt the real property from subcontractor and supplier liens.

No need to worry! Liens can be transferred to the payment bond even though the payment bond was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement.

The payment bond operates to “secure every lien under the direct contract accruing subsequent to its execution and delivery.” Fla.Stat. s. 713.23(2). Even though the payment bond was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement as required, the owner or contractor can record a Notice of Bond with a copy of the payment bond that will operate to transfer the lien to the security of the payment bond.

To this point, Florida Statute s. 713.13(1)(e) states in relevant part:

[I]f a payment bond under s. 713.23 exists but was not attached at the time of recordation of the notice of commencement, the bond may be used to transfer any recorded lien of a lienor except that of the contractor by the recordation and service of a notice of bond pursuant to s. 713.23(2). The notice requirements of s. 713.23 apply to any claim against the bond; however, the time limits for serving any required notices shall, at the option of the lienor, be calculated from the dates specified in s. 713.23 or the date the notice of bond is served on the lienor.

Stated differently, just because the payment bond was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement does not mean the payment bond is worthless. Rather, it can still be used to transfer construction liens to the security of the bond.

Further, if discovered early enough, and within the effective period of the Notice of Commencement, an Amended Notice of Commencement can be recorded which attaches a copy of the payment bond. The Amended Notice of Commencement needs to be served by the owner “upon the contractor and each lienor who serves notice before or within 30 days after the date the amended notice is recorded.” Fla.Stat. s. 713.13(5)(b). But, the Amended Notice of Commencement can be used to clarify the omission of the payment bond in the original Notice of Commencement.

CONDITIONAL PAYMENT BONDS AND TRANSFERRING A LIEN TO THAT BOND

Posted on October 31, 2015October 31, 2015 by Edward Garber

There 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.

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

Posted on October 10, 2015October 10, 2015 by Edward Garber

The 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.

CHARTS AND GRAPHICS SUMMARIZING PAYMENT BOND AND CONSTRUCTION LIEN RIGHTS

Posted on July 1, 2015July 1, 2015 by Edward Garber

As 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.

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

Posted on June 13, 2015June 13, 2015 by Edward Garber

The 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).

ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST COMMON LAW PAYMENT BONDS

Posted on April 27, 2015April 27, 2015 by Edward Garber

On 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 (5^th 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.