Arizona’s “Little Miller Act,” which is modeled after the federal Miller Act, protects the payment rights of people and companies that supply labor or materials on public projects. Because mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens cannot attach to public property, the Act requires contractors on public works projects to furnish payment bonds on which a claimant who is not paid in full can sue.
The case discussed in this article, S&S Paving v. Berkley,
raises practical issues that stem from the Little Miller Act and the payment remedies it provides.
Background.
S&S Paving and Construction performed paving work on a City of Prescott project under a contract with the general contractor, Spire Engineering. Berkley Regional Insurance Company issued a payment bond for the project.
When Spire failed to pay $23,763 that S&S claimed was owed, S&S sent a demand letter to the surety, Berkley. In acknowledging S&S’s claim, Berkley requested additional information that S&S provided along with a proof of claim. Two months later, Berkley acknowledged receipt of the documentation and advised S&S that Berkley would be back in touch after checking with Spire.
That was the extent of the communication between S&S and Berkley until May 2013, when S&S sent another demand letter to Berkley in connection with its breach of contract suit against Spire. When Berkley denied S&S’s claim, for failure to meet the one-year statute of limitations for claims against public works payment bonds, S&S sued Berkley for breach of contract and bad faith.
The trial court dismissed both of S&S’s claims against Berkley, noting the expiration of the statute of limitations and, further, the absence of a contract between S&S and Berkley.
Appeal.
S&S appealed the dismissal of its bad faith claim, arguing before the Arizona Court of Appeals that sureties issuing payment bonds have a duty to “undertake an investigation adequate to determine whether a claimant’s claim is tenable or valid” and that sureties owe the same duty of good faith to claimants as insurance companies owe to insureds.
The Court rejected S&S’s argument and upheld the dismissal of the bad faith claim, noting that the Little Miller Act “dictates the procedures that claimants must follow in order to recover against payment bonds.”
“But for its failure to timely file suit, S&S had a ‘complete and valid remedy’ under the Act,” the Court found. By failing to take legal action within the statute of limitations, S&S forfeited its recovery rights granted by the Act.
The Court also rejected S&S’s argument that Berkley had a duty to investigate the validity of S&S’s claim, finding that such a duty does not exist in statute.
Practical Lessons.
It is standard practice, after a claim has been presented, for a surety company to request information from both the claimant and the contractor. However, this standard practice will not excuse a claimant from filing a lawsuit in a timely fashion to preserve its collection rights under the Little Miller Act.
| Lang Thal King & Hanson PC
Lang Thal King & Hanson PC is a 2024 Best Law Firms Metro Tier 1 (Scottsdale) selectee for Construction Law, Construction Litigation and Commercial Litigation, and a Tier 2 selectee for Arbitration.
The act of visiting or communicating with Lang Thal King & Hanson PC, via this website or by email does not create an attorney-client relationship. Communications from non-clients are not subject to client confidentiality or attorney-client privilege.
Further, the articles, discussion, commentary, forms and sample documentation contained in this website are offered as general guidance only and are not to be relied upon as specific legal advice. For legal advice on a specific matter, please consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area. While the articles on this website accurately describe applicable law on the subject covered as of the date of publication, the law continues to develop with the passage of time. Accordingly, care should be taken to verify that the statutes, case law and regulations described have not changed since the article's publication.
The lawyers listed in this website practice law only in the jurisdictions where they are admitted. This website is regulated by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.
Lang Thal King & Hanson construction, litigation and business attorneys represent contractors, subcontractors and general business owners in construction law, contractor licensing, collections and general commercial litigation in the Phoenix area and throughout Arizona.