Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 06-06-2025
Case Style:
Case Number: Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II
Judge: Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Broward County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Vincent Vaccarella
Defendant's Attorney: No appearance
Description: Fort Lauderdale, Florida surety bond law lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a Miller Act claim.
The Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 311-313) is a federal law requiring payment and performance bonds on contracts exceeding $150,000 for federal government construction projects. These bonds protect subcontractors and material suppliers from nonpayment by the prime contractor. 28 U.S.C. § 1352 provides jurisdiction for suits on these bonds in federal district courts.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Purpose:
The Miller Act, enacted in 1935, replaced the Heard Act, aiming to strengthen protections for those supplying labor and materials to federal construction projects.
Scope:
It applies to contracts exceeding $150,000 for construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or works.
Bonds:
Contractors must provide both a payment bond (protecting subcontractors and suppliers) and a performance bond (protecting the government).
Payment Bond:
Guarantees that subcontractors and material suppliers will be paid for their work.
Performance Bond:
Ensures the contractor completes the project according to contract terms, or covers the government's costs if the contractor defaults.
Claims:
Subcontractors and suppliers can file claims on the payment bond within 90 days of last furnishing labor or materials, but must file suit within one year.
State Versions:
Many states have similar laws known as "Little Miller Acts," which may have different thresholds and requirements.
Jurisdiction:
28 U.S.C. § 1352 grants federal district courts jurisdiction over actions on bonds executed under federal law, including the Miller Act.
Outcome: Unknown
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: