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 | 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) […]
Roads & Bridges | Good Faith and Fair Dealing
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING | How Do You Prove a Party Has Failed to Act Based Upon an Ulterior Motive?
The duty […]
Roads & Bridges | Not Another Notice Story
NOT ANOTHER NOTICE STORY| This Defensive Argument Seems to be on the Rise
AS I CONSIDERED the subject matter for this column, I […]
Roads & Bridges | All According to Plan
ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN | Exact Measurements Go a Long Way
In December 2013, a contractor agreed to replace four bridges for the […]
Roads & Bridges | Connecting the Dots
CONNECTING THE DOTS | Showing Causation in Contracting Cases is Critical
In this asphalt case, the prime contractor agreed to perform a $13 […]
Roads & Bridges | Liquidated Damages
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES | Penalties and What is Unenforceable
Liquidated damages typically flow from delays, but they are not always solidly enforced.
In June 2017, […]
Roads& Bridges | Warranty Provisions
WARRANTY PROVISIONS | Contracts must be interpreted thoroughly to avoid absurd results
You are responsible for things within your control. Be careful if […]
Roads& Bridges | The Agreed Price
THE AGREED PRICE | This case stands as a warning about pay-if-paid clause
History cannot be rewritten and a bad, but legal, […]










