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).
U.S. Courts Map (Credit: Wikipedia)
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).
Claim Certified with Digital Signature Deemed OK
The law is not a trend-setter. It doesn’t readily change or adapt to tech. So, a commonplace practice in business became a dispute when a claimant digitally certified a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
