Daniel Lund III | Phelps Dunbar
A concrete subcontractor on a Buc-ee’s project in Alabama filed a lien in excess of $1.6 million. The sub then initiated suit against the general contractor, its surety, and Buc-ee’s.
At the trial court, the sub’s claims were chopped down completely, on the basis that the sub was suing for monies which were due in part for work performed by an unlicensed sub-subcontractor. Under Alabama law, a contractor performing construction work in excess of $50,000 must be licensed, Ala. Code § 34-8-1. The trial court wrote: “Based on the undisputed material facts, all of [plaintiff’s] claims are barred as a matter of Alabama law because [plaintiff] seeks to recover money that is based on, dependent on, and stems from illegal work performed by unlicensed sub-subcontractors. Under Alabama law, any person who performs contracting work for over $50,000 must be licensed by the Alabama Licensing Board for General Contractors.”
The trial court also took a cleaver to the plaintiff’s alternative claims for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, finding that the existence of a contract precluded those theories.
The sub appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, urging that it was not trying to fudge the rules during the project, but was simply using temporary labor from a labor agency, offering this nugget: “[Plaintiff] contends that People HR and the other labor brokers it used are temporary staffing agencies in the business of providing temporary laborers, which, in this case, supplemented [plaintiff’s] workforce, and that those entities did not contract to perform construction activities covered under § 34-8-1. There was evidence indicating that the temporary laborers utilized the same timekeeping software as [plaintiff] employees, that [plaintiff] determined the hourly wages it billed [the GC] for the temporary laborers’ work, and that [plaintiff] paid for liability insurance for the temporary laborers.”
The Alabama Supreme Court found that the foregoing set of facts did not necessarily wrap up the plaintiff’s appeal, but noted that the case was distinguishable from earlier Alabama Supreme Court authority on the topic. In assessing the lower court judgment as potentially a knee-jerk reaction, the Alabama Supreme Court wrote:
“[I]n that [earlier] case, there was no dispute as to the role and the extent of the unlicensed contractor’s involvement in construction and supervisory activities. Here, there was evidence indicating that the temporary laborers were directed and supervised on the project by [plaintiff’s] supervisor… [and] a dispute… regarding whether the temporary laborers were engaged in actual concrete work, construction, or supervisory activities that fall under the licensing requirements of § 34-8-1 or whether they were engaged in menial labor.”
Opining that the foregoing findings gave the trial court something additional to chew on, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment against the subcontractor and remanded the principal contract claims for further consideration by the lower court.
MSE Bldg. Co. v. Stewart/Perry Co., 2023 Ala. LEXIS 114 (Oct. 20, 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.