As if you needed confirmation that the Federal Miller Act is a powerful tool for unpaid subcontractors, this is it. Even when a Prime ordered and accepted the Sub’s work, but didn’t have to pay under the Subcontract, the Subcontractor still got paid by the Prime’s Surety.
On a project for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Qatar, a Subcontractor agreed to provide labor and materials for telecommunication systems. The Prime ordered and accepted a portion of the work and the Sub performed. The Corps then terminated the Prime for default, so the Prime refused to pay the Sub.
The Prime breached the Subcontract but because of its termination by the Corps and terms of the Subcontract, the Prime was not on the hook for any damages to the Sub. Notably, the Court stated that, if “the Court were to base its decision on whether a party had acted unprofessionally towards another party, had mislead another party (whether intentionally or not), or had wrongly accused another party of failing to perform under a contract, then the court would find the [Prime should pay the Sub].” But, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to interpreting and applying only the applicable law, including the parties’ agreement.
However, under the Federal Miller Act, the Prime’s Surety was liable for the full amount of damages. The Surety’s liability is independent of its Principal’s liability and required only a showing that the Sub had performed the work and had not been paid.
Pragmatically, the Surety will pay the Sub and then demand reimbursement from its Principal, the Prime.
U.S. f/u/b/o VT Milcom, Inc. v. PAT USA, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00007, (W.D. Va., July 14, 2017).
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, […]
Roads& Bridges | Confusing Waters
CONFUSING WATERS | A Supreme Court ruling leaves room for ambiguity
What happens when there may be a “significant nexus” between “adjacent” and/or […]
