The plaintiffs in Kapiloff’s Glass, Inc. et.al.
v.University of Massachusetts (UMASS), et.al were all
specialty contractors on a project at the University of Massachusetts Lowell
where they were contracted to furnish and install metal windows, interior
glass, roofing materials, and custom laser curtains respectively. The
project’s general contractor was required by state statute to furnish a
subcontractor payment bond at the onset of construction. When the
plaintiff’s work was completed in a timely manner, the general contractor
failed to issue full payment for the work and suit was filed against the
general contractor and its surety. At that time, the plaintiffs learned
the surety was not licensed in Massachusetts, never registered with Division of
Insurance as required by law, and was in fact a false business entity without
assets. Multiple judgement have been entered against the general
contractor and surety in the amount of $500,000 and neither party has
responded or made payment on the judgments.
M.G.L. c. 149, § 29
states in part that: “Officers or agents contracting in behalf of the commonwealth...for
the construction…of public buildings or other public works…shall obtain
security by bond in an amount not less than one half of the total contract
price, for payment by the contractor and subcontractors for labor performed or
furnished and materials used or employed therein [.]” The current dispute
primarily centers around the meaning of “officer” and “agent” in the
statute. The plaintiffs argue that “officer” and “agent” applies to the
Commonwealth while the defendants argue that the terms relate to the general
contractor. The Court found in its denial of the defendants motion to
dismiss that in the plain language of the statute, general contractors are not
in fact “officers or agents” of the government but operate in their own self-interest. The Court further found that if the legislature intended such a duty to be only
for general contractors, it would have stated such by using the term general
contractor, which is used expressly throughout the statute.
The Court further stated that the Commonwealth owes a duty to the
plaintiffs as expressed through the history of the M.G.L. c. 149, § 29 through multiple Supreme Judicial
Court rulings. These rulings establish that the statute protects
subcontractors, not the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the Commonwealth was
in the best position to protect the plaintiffs because as subcontractors, they
had no access to the bond information during the bid process. The
Commonwealth has its own insurance division where a cursory inspection would have
shown that the surety was “not licensed, solvent, or registered to conduct
business in Massachusetts and accordingly could not supply a payment bond that
would adequately protect plaintiffs.”
This is a case of first impression in Massachusetts.
------------------
The author, Brendan Carter, is a contributor to The Dispute
Resolver and a former Student Division Liaison to the Forum on
Construction Law. He is an attorney and a Senior Consultant with
Navigant’s Global Construction Practice based out of Boston, MA. He may
be contacted at 617.748.8311 or brendan.carter@navigant.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment