Feeding the Beast: In a Payment Bond, "All Sums Justly Due" May Include Attorneys' Fees
ABSTRACT: Sureties must pay attorneys' fees on private construction projects where payment bond contains provision calling for payment of "all sums justly due," says 8th Circuit.
In Owners Insurance Company v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, the Eighth Circuit was asked to determine whether a private construction payment bond containing the phrase “all sums justly due” requires a commercial surety to pay attorneys’ fees incurred by the bond claimant. Its holding was a resounding Yes, at least where the underlying contract between the bond principal and the bond claimant contains an attorneys’ fee provision.
As the court stated, this matter involved “a construction project gone wrong.” Ben F. Blanton, Inc. was hired by BCC Partners, LLC to build luxury apartments in the St. Louis area. As is standard on most large construction projects, BCC required Blanton to obtain a payment bond that would protect BCC if Blanton failed to pay its subcontractors or material suppliers. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”), a commercial surety, provided the payment bond. The bond provided that if Blanton did not pay subcontractors or material suppliers, they could file suit and recover from F&D “all sums as may be justly due.”
Blanton failed to pay Stark Truss (a material supplier) and Lindberg Waterproofing (a subcontractor) for materials supplied and services rendered on the projects. Both entities obtained arbitration awards against Blanton including significant attorneys’ fees that, in one instance, exceeded the award for labor and materials supplied. Importantly, the fee awards were made pursuant to terms in the contracts with Blanton that explicitly provided for recovery of attorneys’ fees.
After the awards were issued, Blanton declared bankruptcy. Pursuant to the payment bond, F&D paid Stark Truss and Lindberg for labor and materials but refused to pay any of the awarded attorneys’ fees. Stark Truss and Lindberg brought suit. F&D moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. Stark Truss and Lindberg appealed, and the 8th Circuit reversed.
The court’s reasoning was straightforward. First, it noted that the phrase “all sums justly due” was not limited by any qualifying language that would exclude attorneys’ fees from F&D’s obligation. Next, it noted that this phrase was taken from a prior iteration of the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §3131, which requires payment bonds on federal public construction projects. This language had been construed under the Miller Act to allow for recovery of attorneys’ fees where the underlying bonded contract allowed for recovery of attorneys’ fees. In this case, the underlying contract, while not involving a public project subject to the Miller Act, did allow for recovery of attorneys’ fees. Thus, reasoned the court, F&D was on the hook for the attorneys’ fees awarded by the arbitrator.
Clearly, where the underlying contract between the bond principal and the bond claimant contains an attorneys’ fees provision, the Eighth Circuit is willing to give this particular and commonly used phrase “all sums justly due” an expansive reading, even where such fees outstrip the actual damages awarded to a bond claimant. Thus, commercial sureties should expect an uphill battle avoiding claims for such fees under a payment bond that calls for payment of “all sums justly due.”
related services
Kansas City Area Returns to Pre-Pandemic Jury Verdict Trends ...
When Artificial Intelligence leads to Genuine Stupidity ...
About Missouri Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Missouri Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Missouri law on a broad range of topics of interest to Missouri practitioners and attorneys and businesses with disputes subject to Missouri law. Learn more about the editor, David Eisenberg.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Missouri Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Missouri Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Missouri Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.