United States Ex Rel. McKenney's, Inc. v. Government Technical Services, LLC

531 F. Supp. 2d 1375 | District Court, N.D. Georgia | 2008

enforcedCited 3 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Pay-when-paid clauses in subcontracts cannot bar a subcontractor's recovery under the Miller Act payment bond, as the Act's remedial purpose and federal law govern the timing of recovery independent of state contract conditions.

A contract provision that would deny the subcontractor its federal remedy under the Act cannot be used as a defense by a surety.

District Court, N.D. Georgia, 2008

Related Cases

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

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.

Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

2002modified

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.

EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc.

2010enforced

A supplier cannot enforce a payment obligation against a project owner based on a letter offering optional direct payment arrangements, where the supplier's own deposition testimony demonstrates it never understood the letter as a binding contract.

Sage Street Associates v. Northdale Construction Co.

1993remanded

Texas Constitution's usury provision applies only to lending transactions, not to judicially-awarded prejudgment interest, which derives from court order rather than commercial agreement.

El Paso Field Services, L.P. and Gulfterra South Texas, L.P. F/K/A El Paso South Texas, L.P. v. Mastec North America, Inc. and Mastec, Inc.

2012enforced

Contract clearly allocated all risk of undiscovered foreign pipeline crossings to contractor despite owner's due diligence obligation, as contractor assumed full responsibility for site conditions notwithstanding any owner representations.

Chilton Insurance Co. v. Pate & Pate Enterprises, Inc.

1996modified

A general contractor that judicially admits owing a subcontractor a specific credit amount and continues treating the contract as valid waives its right to claim the subcontractor's breach excuses non-payment.