Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc.
239 Conn. 708 | Supreme Court of Connecticut | 1997
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A subcontractor sued a general contractor and the payment bond surety for unpaid work on a water treatment plant project. The general contractor defaulted and the city took over construction. The court ruled that the payment bond surety must pay the subcontractor for all labor and materials provided, including costs for idle equipment, standby labor, and equipment rental during project delays. This means sureties cannot avoid payment by claiming equipment or labor wasn't actively used.
Key Takeaways
- •Payment bond sureties are liable for all labor and materials costs, even if equipment sits idle or workers are on standby during delays—you get paid for what you provided, not just what was actively used.
- •Document all labor, materials, and equipment rental costs carefully, including periods when work was delayed or equipment wasn't in active use, because these are recoverable under payment bonds.
- •If a general contractor defaults on a public works project, pursue the payment bond surety aggressively—courts will enforce payment obligations for the full value of work and materials furnished.
Subcontractors are to be reimbursed the value of labor and materials provided on a public works project.
Frequently Asked Question
If my equipment sits idle or workers are on standby during a project delay, can the payment bond surety refuse to pay for that time?
No. This Connecticut case established that payment bond sureties must pay for all labor and materials furnished on a public works project, regardless of whether they were actively used. If you provided equipment rental or kept workers on standby due to project delays, the surety is still liable for those costs. Document everything carefully to support your claim.
Related Cases
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi
A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.
Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.
Sovereign immunity bars subcontractors from enforcing equitable liens against the United States Government, as the APA's waiver of immunity does not extend to claims for money damages.
Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh
An insured may assert an article 21.21 claim against its excess liability carrier for unfair claim settlement practices, but liability requires proof of a proper settlement demand within policy limits that an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept.
Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.
A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.
Rice v. Pinney
A county court has jurisdiction to determine immediate possession in a forcible detainer action even when a concurrent district court suit challenges title, provided the possession determination does not necessarily require resolving the title dispute.