Do you remember the Choose Your Own Adventure books? If you are a subcontractor on a federal project, where should you bring a lawsuit to get paid? If you are a prime contractor on a federal project, would you like the convenience of defending such a lawsuit in your own backyard?
The Federal Miller Act is designed to enforce payment for work on public buildings and public works when the U.S. Government is a party to the prime contract. Typically, a lawsuit by a subcontractor or material supplier seeking payment must be filed in the same geographic area where the Project is located. (40 USC § 3133(b)(3)(B)). However, a forum selection clause may differ and determine where such a lawsuit must be filed.
In mid-July 2015, a Federal District Court transferred a case from Connecticut to Virginia by applying a valid forum selection clause in a Miller Act lawsuit. The project was for refurbishment of a barracks building located at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. Typically then, Connecticut would be the proper place to file a Miller Act lawsuit.
However, the subcontract provided that all “claims related in any way or manner to the Subcontract Work . . . shall be litigated in” Virginia. The Federal Court in Connecticut followed the same logic as some other Federal Circuits (1st, 5th, 8th, and 10th) and found that when the forum selection clause is otherwise valid, it will be upheld even when the Federal Statute does not expressly provide for anything different (i.e., the Federal Statute states the Miller Act lawsuit “must” be filed where the Project is located).
The Connecticut Federal District Court also noted that Virginia law, not Connecticut law, applied to interpret the Subcontract, but this alone was not a reason to transfer the case to Virginia.
Keystone: If your Project is located in any of the Federal Circuits following the same reasoning (1st, 5th, 8th, and 10th Circuits) and your subcontract provides for a specific place to file the lawsuit, you should consider it as a defensive maneuver as a prime contractor or for efficiency sake as a subcontractor.
Case: QSR Steel Corporation, LLC v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, Case No. 3:14-1017 (U.S.D.C., Dist. Conn., July 16, 2015).
Roads & Bridges | Wait and It’s Waived
WAIT AND IT’S WAIVED
Roads & Bridges | Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Delay
Don’t wait to arbitrate! Progressing too far down the litigation […]
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
BIDDING BLUNDER
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
For over 125 years, the vast majority of jurisdictions […]
FEDERAL CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION
The White House has directed Agency heads to “terminate or modify . . . covered contracts.” With some exceptions, there are […]
Roads & Bridges | Maximizing Damage Recovery
MAXIMIZING DAMAGE RECOVERY
Tracking Costs, Avoiding Duplication in Liquidated and Actual Damage Claims
A County and Contractor contracted for construction of a road and […]
Roads & Bridges | Roadwork, Delays and Disputes
ROADWORK, DELAYS, AND DISPUTES
The Subcontract Case In Pecos County, Texas
“Road construction is ubiquitous in our society. . . .” C&C Road […]
Roads & Bridges | Understanding Sovereign Immunity
UNDERSTANDING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY| Public Contracts and Lessons from Recent Texas Cases
Generally, governmental entities are immune from lawsuits. One exception is contractual. If […]
Roads & Bridges | Indiana Court Upholds Broad ND4D Clause
INDIANA COURT UPHOLDS BROAD ND4D CLAUSE | Ruling Precludes Subcontractor Claims for Delay and Acceleration Damages
This is the story of an Indiana […]
Roads & Bridges | Some Conditions Apply
SOME CONDITIONS APPLY | The scope of insurance policy coverage and what the terms dictate
At some time or another, many have tried […]
Roads & Bridges | Contract Termination
CONTRACT TERMINATION | An unpredictable case teaches hard lessons to each party involved
Court decisions are “opinions.” There are majority and dissenting (disagreeing) […]










