1950 OLD GALLOWS ROAD, SUITE 750
VIENNA, VA 22182
PHONE: 703.506.1990   FAX: 703.506.1140
EMAIL: INFO@BRIGLIALAW.COM

slogan1.gif
FOURTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT CONTRACTOR’S GUARANTY TO PAY SUBCONTRACTOR DOES NOT CREATE THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLIER. PDF Print

(January 1, 2015) - We have previously written about the difficulty faced by subcontractors and suppliers when asserting third-party beneficiary claims against owners or general contractors (click here). A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit continues that trend and demonstrates how, in the absence of a timely payment bond claim or properly-perfected mechanic's lien, subcontractors and suppliers have few available remedies outside of a standard breach of contract claim.

In U.S. ex rel. Potomac Valley Brick & Supply Co. v. Grahams Construction, Inc., 585 Fed.Appx. 173 (4th Cir. 2014), Potomac Valley, a bricks and mortar supplier to a construction project at Andrews Air Force Base, filed suit against the project's general contractor and its surety bond when the masonry subcontractor failed to make payment. During discovery, the general contractor produced an email in which it guaranteed payment to the masonry subcontractor for the bricks and mortar, even if the materials were installed by another subcontractor. Although the email did not mention, nor was it sent to, Potomac Valley, the supplier amended its lawsuit to assert that it was a third-party beneficiary of the email "contract" between the general contractor and subcontractor. The district court granted summary judgment on the third-party beneficiary claim, as well as the Miller Act claim due to lack of timeliness of notice. Potomac Valley appealed solely as to the third-party beneficiary claim.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that, even if the email constituted a contract, Potomac Valley was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. Under Maryland law, an "individual is a third-party beneficiary to a contract if the contract was intended for his or her benefit and it clearly appears that the parties intended to recognize him or her as the primary party in interest and as privy to the promise." This determination is made based upon "the language of the instrument and consideration of the surrounding circumstances." The Fourth Circuit held that, here, the email and the surrounding circumstances demonstrated that the email was sent in order to ensure that the cost of the bricks and mortar would not be borne by the masonry subcontractor in the event another subcontractor completed its work. Therefore, since there was no evidence that the email was drafted with the intention of specifically benefiting the supplier, Potomac Valley, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.

 

News

MARYLAND ENFORCES PAY-IF-PAID CLAUSE AGAINST SUBCONTRACTOR ON A VIRGINIA PROJECT.

(July 7, 2017) - In the recent decision of Young Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dustin Construction, Inc., the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, applying Virginia law, affirmed a circuit court ...

More

RECENT DECISION HIGHLIGHTS THE BENEFITS THAT QUALIFIED MECHANIC’S LIEN COUNSEL CAN PROVIDE TO LIEN CLAIMANTS.

(June 26, 2017) - Earlier this month, the Virginia Supreme Court issued a mechanic’s lien decision that underscores the benefits of having a qualified mechanic’s lien attorney prepare and file ...

More

SHANNON J. BRIGLIA CO-AUTHORS ARTICLE IN TORT TRIAL & INSURANCE PRACTICE LAW JOURNAL.

(May 1, 2017) – Shannon J. Briglia has co-authored an article for the Winter 2017 edition of  the American Bar Association’s Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Journal titled: “Recent Developments ...

More
©2014 BrigliaMcLaughlin, PLLC - View Disclaimer
Law Firm Web Design by The Modern Firm