Highland Renovation Corp. v. Hanover Insurance Group
620 F. Supp. 2d 79 | District Court, District of Columbia | 2009
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Highland Renovation performed renovation work on a federal project but was not paid by the general contractor. Highland sued the surety bond company under the Miller Act seeking payment. The court dismissed the case because Highland waited too long to file—more than one year after completing its last work. The court ruled that punch list and remedial work after the main work was done does not restart the one-year deadline to sue.
Key Takeaways
- •File a Miller Act claim within one year of your last day of work—this deadline is strict and cannot be extended by minor follow-up work or punch list items
- •Document your final work date carefully; the clock starts ticking from when you perform your last labor, not when the project officially closes
- •Do not rely on punch list work, warranty repairs, or remedial work to extend your filing deadline—these do not restart the one-year period
An action brought under the Miller Act must be filed no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied.
Frequently Asked Question
Does punch list work or warranty repairs extend my one-year deadline to sue on a Miller Act bond?
No. The one-year deadline runs from your last day of labor on the main work. Punch list items, remedial work, and warranty repairs performed after that date do not restart or extend the deadline. You must file suit within one year of your final work date or lose your right to recover.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.