Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

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

‹ Prev article: 
 

Miller Act Doesn't Prevent Surety From Setting Bond Expiry

Wednesday, February 02, 2011 01:37 am

 

Bonds, Miller Act

United States f/u/b/o of Russel Sigler, Inc. v. Associated Mechanical, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 129834 (D. Nev. Dec. 8, 2010)

A court cannot hold a surety liable for coverage it didn't intend to provide -- even if the payment bond's duration wasn't long enough to cover the full length of the project.

Russel Sigler, Inc.'s (Sigler) supplied $200,000 worth of heating, ventilation and air conditioning supplies for a U.S. Air Force construction project at a base in Indian Springs, Nevada. The subcontractor that hired Sigler never paid fo the materials. Sigler notified the general contractor, Amerind Builders, LLC (Amerind), of the nonpayment and demanded that Amerind and its surety, E.C. Scarborough (Scarborough), pay the $200,000. When they refused, Sigler sought summary judgment on its claims on the payment bond and alleged unjust enrichment against Amerind.

Amerind and Scarborough argued that Sigler's claim against the payment bo[...]

 
› 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