Southern Painting Company of Tennessee v. United States, Ex Rel. Silver
222 F.2d 431 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kansas law, which governs the allowance of interest in federal Miller Act cases, pre-judgment interest is not recoverable on an unliquidated claim where there is a good-faith dispute over the amount due and no unreasonable or vexatious delay of payment.
Facts:
- Southern Painting Company of Tennessee, Inc. (Southern) held two prime contracts with the U.S. government for rehabilitation work on government camps near Salina, Kansas.
- Southern entered into a subcontract with E. M. Silver to perform all the plumbing and heating work required under Southern's government contracts.
- The subcontract specified that Silver would receive a total lump sum fee of $10,000 ($6,000 for one contract and $4,000 for the other) plus reimbursement for all material, labor, and other costs.
- Silver performed more than 90% of the required work under the subcontract.
- Southern then breached the contract by refusing to allow Silver to complete the remaining work.
- At the time Southern terminated the contract, Silver had been paid $7,000 of his total $10,000 fee.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States, for the use of E. M. Silver, filed a lawsuit against Southern Painting Company and its surety, United Pacific Insurance Company, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The action was brought under the Miller Act, with Silver seeking to recover the reasonable value of his services on a quantum meruit theory.
- The U.S. District Court found that Southern had breached the contract and entered a judgment in favor of Silver for $13,000, plus interest calculated from the date Silver was wrongfully discharged.
- Southern Painting Company and United Pacific Insurance Company, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Silver was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Kansas law permit the recovery of pre-judgment interest on an unliquidated quantum meruit claim arising from a breached contract under the Miller Act, where the amount due was subject to a good-faith dispute?
Opinions:
Majority - Huxman, Circuit Judge
No. Pre-judgment interest is not recoverable on an unliquidated claim where a good-faith dispute exists as to the amount owed and there is no unreasonable or vexatious delay of payment. The court affirmed that a subcontractor whose contract is breached by the prime contractor may sue under the Miller Act for the reasonable value of their performance under a quantum meruit theory. However, the court found that the award of interest from the date of the breach was improper. The allowance of interest in federal litigation is determined by the relevant state law, which in this case is Kansas law. Kansas statutes and precedent consistently hold that interest is not recoverable on unliquidated claims until the amount due has been ascertained. A claim is considered unliquidated when the amount is not fixed and is subject to a good-faith dispute, as evidenced here by Silver claiming $72,000 while the court ultimately awarded $13,000. Because the amount was not determined until the judgment and there was no evidence of unreasonable or vexatious delay by Southern, it would be inequitable to charge interest for the period of the dispute. Therefore, interest should only be calculated from the date of the judgment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the intersection of federal statutory remedies and state law concerning damages. It establishes that while a cause of action may arise under the federal Miller Act, the specific issue of pre-judgment interest is governed by state law, reinforcing the principles of federalism in judicial proceedings. The case reinforces the distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims, providing a clear precedent in the Tenth Circuit that a good-faith dispute over the value of services renders a claim unliquidated, thereby precluding pre-judgment interest absent vexatious conduct. This holding impacts litigation strategy for contractors, as it limits potential recovery and underscores that winning on the merits of a breach does not guarantee compensation for the time value of money during the litigation period.
