Opinion ID: 66013
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alabama Contract Law: “Subcontractor”

Text: Texaco argues that AmClyde is not a subcontractor under Alabama law because the work that AmClyde performed was for McDermott’s general use and was not covered by the Petronius Contract. “Stated simply, a subcontractor is one who ‘perform[s] some portion of the contract of the general contractor.’” H.R.H. Metals, Inc. v. Miller ex rel. Miller, 833 So. 2d 18, 23 (Ala. 2002) (citing Pinecrest Apartments, Ltd. v. R.P. McDavid Co., 535 So. 2d 126, 128 (Ala. 1988) (alteration in original)). Under Alabama law, the common understanding of the term “subcontractor” is, One who takes [a] portion of a contract from [the] principal contractor or another subcontractor. One who has entered into a contract, express or implied, for the performance of an act with the person who has already contracted for its performance. One who takes from the principal or prime contractor a specific part of the work undertaken by the principal contractor. H.R.H. Metals, 833 So. 2d at 23–24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 No. 08-30528 The Petronius Contract detailed the scope of the work that McDermott was expected to perform on the Petronius Project. The Contract required McDermott to [f]urnish and pay for all labor, office and fabrication facilities, equipment, materials and supplies and to perform and complete all work and services required or necessary, in accordance with this Agreement for the engineering, design, drafting, fabrication, and installation of piles, template base, and top section for a compliant tower, together with the installation of topsides and Ensco, (formerly Dual) 29 or comparable drilling rig at Viosca Knoll Block 786 [also known as the Petronius Project], all as set forth more fully in Exhibit A—Scope of Work. That is, the Contract required McDermott, inter alia, to provide all necessary services to engineer, design, and install the Compliant Tower. The record reveals that AmClyde performed work integral to McDermott’s obligations under the Contract. Specifically, AmClyde designed the deep water lowering system for use on the underwater installation of the tower support structure for the Petronius Project and provided specific technical advice on the main hook loading for the lifts of the North Deck Module and the SDM. Because the work AmClyde performed designing the deep water lowering system and its provision of technical advice was work that McDermott was assigned to perform under the Petronius Contract, this evidence suggests that, as a matter of Alabama law, AmClyde was a “subcontractor” on the Petronius Project. Texaco was given the opportunity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) to “set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Texaco, however, only provided evidence that McDermott intended to use the deep water lowering system on other projects; it has provided no evidence to support its allegation that AmClyde’s technical advice was for McDermott’s general use. Its failure to do so is fatal to its argument. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(e) (requiring that a party opposing summary judgment set forth evidence creating a genuine issue 7 No. 08-30528 of material fact to survive summary judgment). Texaco has thus failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that AmClyde was not a subcontractor under Alabama law. See H.R.H. Metals, 833 So. 2d at 23.