Devin B. Strickland v. Arch Insurance Company
17-10610
| 11th Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Strickland supplied sand to Douglas for a GDOT road project; Arch issued a payment bond for Douglas.
- Douglas was removed for default in 2007; Arch completed the project via a third-party contractor; Strickland did not supply materials after Douglas’s removal.
- Inspections: substantial completion noted in Aug 2010; punch-list work completed by Sept 2011; GDOT accepted maintenance responsibilities retroactive to Sept 2011 and paid semi-final funds to Arch in July 2012.
- Strickland sent a bond demand in Sept 2012; he failed to produce requested documentation; he filed suit in Aug 2014 after being told GDOT was closing out the project.
- GDOT issued a written “final acceptance” in Sept 2014 stating acceptance as of April 17, 2012; GDOT testimony explained a multi-year internal closeout and materials-certification process.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Arch, concluding Strickland’s bond claims were barred by Georgia’s one-year statute of limitations; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 1-year limitations period on a payment bond begin? | Begins when GDOT issued its written final acceptance (2014). | Begins at completion and acceptance of actual construction work (Sept 2011 or earlier). | Court: Begins at completion of actual construction and acceptance by the public authority, not GDOT's later paperwork. |
| Was the project "completed" within meaning of statute? | Not complete until all contractor maintenance/repair obligations ended with written final acceptance. | Substantial completion (only punch-list items remaining) constitutes completion. | Court: Substantial completion (punch-list remaining) is completion for statute purposes. |
| Did GDOT "accept" the work before written final acceptance? | Email statements show no final acceptance in 2014, creating dispute. | GDOT inspected, accepted for maintenance, and paid prior to 2012; written final acceptance was merely a later administrative step. | Court: Acceptance refers to acceptance of actual work; GDOT accepted earlier despite delayed written final acceptance. |
| Does an unpaid supplier keep tolling the limitations period while the bond remains in effect? | The bond remains in force until suppliers are paid; limitations should not run while unpaid. | Interpreting statute that way would nullify the limitations period; limitations run from completion/acceptance, not payment. | Court: Rejected tolling argument; statute runs from completion/acceptance, not from final payment or bond expiration. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S.F. & G. Co. v. Rome Concrete Pipe Co., 353 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. 1987) (statute begins at completion and acceptance; rejects reliance on public authority internal procedures)
- Masonry Specialists of Ga., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 616 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (substantial completion and acceptance suffice to start limitations period)
- Augusta Iron & Steel Works, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 790 F.2d 852 (11th Cir. 1986) (completion for statute does not equate to final payment)
- Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard)
- Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 802 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of statute-of-limitations application)