Daniel Lund III | Phelps Dunbar
Muddled results?
After milling about the site for quite some time, a subcontractor on an Army Corps of Engineers excavation project in Louisiana filed a Miller Act claim against the general contractor’s bond.
According to the subcontractor, the 1,000,000 yd.³ project – which was slated for 15 months – was stuck in the mud, with the sub projecting an overall four-year delay in completion. Key to the subcontractor’s complaint was the alleged lack of support from the GC in providing dump trucks to haul the fill (40 or 50 trucks promised daily morphed into “about 8 or 9 trucks a day”).
The subcontractor sought delay costs from the general contractor, and the GC resisted. The general contractor asserted that the delay claim was “outside the terms of the Subcontract,” that any payment request was required to be “based upon USACE approved calculations of in-place quantities…,” and also that “standby time” was not accounted for by the subcontract.
A declaratory judgment action was filed by the general contractor in Louisiana state court, and the matter was subsequently removed to federal court to accommodate the subcontractor’s counterclaim, which included the Miller Act claim against the general contractor’s surety for the delays and based upon the Louisiana Prompt Payment Act.
The surety sought on a Rule 12 motion dismissal of all claims against it. The federal court in New Orleans sided with the surety only in part.
Regarding the delay claim – and finding that the pleadings revealed contentions on both sides that suggested the possibility that the subcontract was ambiguous on the point – the USDC for the Eastern District of Louisiana held (citing to United States ex rel. Am. Civil Constr., LLC v. Hirani Eng’g & Land Surveying, P.C., 345 F. Supp. 3d 11, 48 (D.D.C. 2018)): “‘[w]ith respect to pieces of equipment that were present at [a subcontractor’s work] site and used with regularity, awarding the costs of standby time is consistent with the text and purposes of the Miller Act.’”
Concerning the prompt payment claim against the surety, however, the court would not countenance that, and dismissed the claim. Citing (interestingly) to a Louisiana state law case, the court held: “The law supports [the surety’s] position here. ‘While the Miller Act is not the exclusive remedy available to suppliers in some cases, it is the exclusive remedy available to a supplier against a surety . . . on a Miller Act payment bond. Bernard Lumber Co. v. Lanier-Gervais Corp.,560 So. 2d 465, 467 (La. Ct. App. 1990).”
Greenup Indus. LLC v. Five S Grp., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44166 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2023)
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.