Opinion ID: 484963
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Control's Miller Act Claim Against Arundel

Text: 26 The district court held that under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 270a et seq, Control was entitled to judgment against Arundel and its sureties for $132,747.22 plus interest. Arundel challenges this conclusion on the single ground that Control failed to establish notice and delivery as required by 40 U.S.C. Sec. 270b(a). 27 At the close of Control's case, Arundel moved for a directed verdict on the basis that Control had failed to establish that it had given Arundel the ninety day notice required by the Miller Act. 8 The district court denied this motion because Arundel had not raised any issue of notice in the pretrial order, and thus was precluded from raising the issue at trial. However, the court allowed Control to reopen its case and present evidence of notice, whereupon Control introduced uncontroverted evidence that notice was given on March 25, 1983. 28 Arundel argues that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish notice under the Miller Act, because nothing in the record establishes that the last delivery of materials or last performance of services was within ninety days of the notice; i.e., that Control delivered supplies or performed services after December 25, 1982. However, Control introduced invoices showing delivery of technical manuals on January 17, 1983 and labor performed on January 15, 1983, well within ninety days of the notice. 9 As such, proper Miller Act notice was given, and Arundel is liable under its bond.