Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

Construction Claims Monthly - Devoted exclusively to the problems of construction contracting since 1963

‹ Prev article: 
 

State Court Filing Did Not Extend Miller Act Period Bonds-payment; Statutes Of Limitation

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 03:10 pm

 
State Court Filing Did Not Extend Miller Act Period Bonds-payment; Statutes Of Limitation

A federal court has ruled that filing a Miller Act payment bond claim in state court did not extend the oneperiod allowed for a proper filing in federal district court.

The Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract to Rayco Construction Co. for improvements to an Army Reserve Center at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas. Rayco furnished payment and performance bonds issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Rayco subcontracted the paving work to Zapata Paving which in turn leased equipment used on the project from United Rentals, Inc.

Zapata Paving failed to pay United Rentals. Two [...]

 
› Next article: 
 
Sign up now for Construction Claims Monthly Online! Your own virtual help desk of must-have techniques, tutorials, and how-to articles.
 
Join Now Construction Claims Monthly! Close