Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

February 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder Magazine presented “9 housing stats to start off spring selling season.” For instance, the rate of U.S. homeownership in the fourth quarter of 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, was 63.9% and there were 728,000 housing starts in December of 2014, according to the NAHB. Furthermore, 80% of contracting firms plan to expand payrolls in 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

April 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the National Association of Builders’ (NAHB) publication Eye on Housing, the NAHB examined “the share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing” statistics as reported in the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS). Wausau, Wisconsin had the highest share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing within a metropolitan area. Interestingly, NAHB found that “[w]ith the exception of Modesto, CA, all of the metropolitan areas in the top ten [were] located in the Midwest.” The New York-White Plains-Wayne (New York) division had the lowest share of homeowners living in single-detached housing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

October 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A post on The Buckner Blog suggests that “construction defects” are the scariest words for architects, engineers, and contractors. With the possible outcomes of a damaged reputation and astronomical costs, it’s not a surprise. Further, builders are using techniques that “have yet to be tested in real application over time.” As a result, “whoever has the deepest pockets or the most to lose becomes the primary target.” While a commercial general liability policy might pay for damage caused by a construction defect, the post notes that “it does not, however, cover the costs to remedy your work.” That cost could be “greater than the actual property damages incurred.” The post recommends a combination of transferring risk and risk control In transferring risk, the builder uses “indemnification and hold harmless agreements as well as inditional insured requirements in their construction contracts.” They advise to “request coverage as an additional insured on a primary basis.” And then there’s risk control. “Work only with architects, engineers and contactors who have good reputations and a track record of performance. Don’t cut corners.” By some careful planning, builders might “sleep better at night.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

May 03, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

North Carolina may become the twelfth state to require a Certificate of Merit to sue an architect or engineer. If North Carolina Senate Bill 435 (SB435) passes, then plaintiffs when filing a complaint will need to also attach an affidavit of a third-party licensed professional engineer or architect stating that the case has merit.

SB435 is a short two pages in its current form. The bill states that the “third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall (i) be competent to testify and hold the same professional license and practice in the same area of practice as the defendant design professional and (ii) offer testimony based upon knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, and practice. The affidavit shall specifically state for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the design professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim. The third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall be licensed in this State and actively engaged in the practice of engineering or architecture respectively.”

A few of the amendments allude to disciplining design professionals who certify civil actions that are without merit. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary I.

While North Carolina is considering enacting a Certificate of Merit law, eleven other states already require one, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Christopher D. Montez, a partner with Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP, has written a useful summary for each state’s certificate of merit scheme.

Read the text of SB435

Track the progress of SB435

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

#2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In July of this year, Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.” Read the full story... In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,” Matthew S. Foy and Michael A. Pursell of Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.” Read the full story... This month, Graham C. Mills of Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that the Mortage Bankers Association (MBA) completed their Builder Application Survey (BAS), which demonstrated that “mortgage applications for new home purchases decreased by a not seasonally adjusted monthly rate of 8.4% in May 2014. However, on a 12-month basis, mortgage applications for new home purchases in May 2014 were 4.9% higher than their level in May 2013.” According to Eye on Housing, “This is the fifth consecutive month of year-over-year increases in mortgage applications for new home purchases.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES