349 S.W.3d 399
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Missouri Little Miller Act requires bonds for public works and limits eligible claimants.
- Ace Pipe Cleaning was general contractor; Lafarge supplied concrete via Excel for USC Projects.
- US Constructall subcontracted trucking and concrete work; Excel was a sub-subcontractor engaged by US Constructall.
- Lafarge sought payment on bonds for concrete supplied to USC Projects and Phase J Project.
- Trial court held Lafarge could recover on Phase J but not on USC Projects; Stone Creek limited eligibility.
- Court affirmed trial court, denying Lafarge recovery on USC bonds for the USC Projects; telescoping and veil-piercing theories were analyzed but rejected for Lafarge on USC Projects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether telescoping can apply to collapse tiers under Little Miller Act. | Lafarge argues telescoping makes Lafarge a subcontractor's supplier. | Ace/Travelers argue no need for sham or enrichment to telescope. | No; telescope inquiry is fact-driven and Lafarge not a subcontractor on USC Projects. |
| Whether Stone Creek limits should prevail; Little Miller Act should protect all laborers/materialmen. | Lafarge seeks broader protection beyond first-tier. | Defendant relies on Stone Creek restricting eligibility to subcontractors and those directly supplying them. | Stone Creek governs; Lafarge not an eligible claimant on USC Projects. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of St. Louis ex rel. Stone Creek Brick Co. v. Kaplan-McGowan Co., 108 S.W.2d 987 (Mo. App. 1937) (limits recovery to subcontractors and direct suppliers to subcontractors under Little Miller Act)
- Stone Creek Brick Co. v. Kaplan-McGowan Co., 108 S.W.2d 987 (1937) (statutory payment bonds cover privity-related claimants; not all laborers and materialmen)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court-tried cases)
- Collins & Hermann, Inc. v. TM2 Const. Co., Inc., 263 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. App. 2008) (Little Miller Act purpose and public protection)
- City of St. Louis v. Hill-O'Meara Const. Co., 158 S.W. 98 (Mo. App. 1913) (mechanic’s lien versus Little Miller Act protections)
- Camdenton Consol. School Dist. No. 6 of Camden County ex rel. W.H. Powell Lumber Co. v. New York Cas. Co., 104 S.W.2d 319 (Mo. banc 1937) (early comparison of lien provisions and Little Miller Act)