Miller Act and Arbitration


In U.S. for the use of McAllister Construction Co., LLC v. Diversified Maintenance Systems Inc., 2011 WL 6112903 (N.D. Fla. 2011) a subcontractor on a federal project sued the Miller Act surety for the prime contractor, and the contractor intervened. The subcontract included an arbitration provision requiring that all disputes be settled by arbitration in Utah. The prime contractor demanded arbitration, but the subcontractor did not participate in the arbitration and claimed that it was invalid. The intervening prime contractor and surety moved for summary judgment. The subcontractor argued that by intervening in the Miller Act suit the prime contractor waived the right to have the dispute resolved by arbitration. The court noted that the petition to intervene cited the arbitration provision and sought to enforce it. The court rejected the subcontractor’s waiver argument, granted the motions, and dismissed the case with prejudice.  (From RPPTL Subcommittee).

Trenton H. Cotney
Board Certified in Construction Law
Trent Cotney, P.A.
1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 579-3278
www.trentcotney.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Dotted Line: When Contractors Can Walk Off the Job

"Mass-timber" Sees Greater Use in Roofing and Construction Projects in Europe