Public Construction Prompt Payment Statutes: Winning Contractor, Surety, And Bonding Company Entitled To $150,000 In Fees After Prevailing Against Losing Subcontractor

Third District’s Affirmance of Prompt Payment Statute Result Ices Correctness of Fee Award.

     In one of our past posts (see January 16, 2009 discussion of the unpublished decision of Li v. Wu), we briefly discussed one of the construction prompt payment statutes. The Legislature has enacted several “prompt payment” statutes designed to make sure that payments (retention, progress, or otherwise) are promptly paid by owner, contractor or subcontractors to other construction professionals.

     Public Contract Code section 7107, one of these statutes, was at play in Martin Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Constr., Inc., Case No. C058944 (3d Dist. Dec. 4, 2009) (certified for publication).

     Section 7107(d) mandates that a general contractor must pay subcontractors within 7 days after contractor receives construction work proceeds from the public entity owner. The prevailing party in a prompt payment dispute under this provision is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. (Pub. Contract Code, sec. 7107(f).)

     Here, the trial court concluded that defendants (a contractor, its surety, and its bonding company) did not violate the prompt payment statute, awarding them $150,000 in fees. That merits determination was affirmed on appeal, which means the fee award stood also.

Comments

[Portable Storage]

Seems an pretty good article,I think that the information given is very useful for the subcontractors as many sections and how to get back money from general contractors.

Thanks,
Portable Storage,
http://moveablecubicle.com/quote.aspx