O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-91-91 (2019)

Liability of contracting party to subcontractors for noncompliance

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a payment bond or security deposit is not taken in the manner and form required in this article, the corporation or body for which work is done under the contract shall be liable to all subcontractors and to all persons furnishing labor, skill, tools, machinery, or materials to the contractor or subcontractor thereunder for any loss resulting to them from such failure. No agreement, modification, or change in the contract, change in the work covered by the contract, or extension of time for the completion of the contract shall release the sureties of such payment bond.

History

Code 1981, § 36-91-71, enacted by Ga. L. 2000, p. 498, § 1; Code 1981, § 36-91-91, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2001, p. 820, § 12.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For survey article on construction law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 55

(2007) and 60 Mercer L. Rev. 59 (2008). For annual survey of construction law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 23 (2015). For survey article on local government law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 147 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Compliance with payment bond requirements. - When the general contractor failed to pay the subcontractor for the subcontractor’s work on a city project and the surety was insolvent, and the subcontractor sued the general contractor and the city for the subcontractor’s work, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the city because the city complied with the payment bond re-

quirements, and the subcontractor was limited to the exclusive remedy set forth in Georgia’s payment bond statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 36-91-90 and 36-91-91. J. Squared Plumbing Company, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 337 Ga. App. 229, 786 S.E.2d 894 (2016). Cited in McArthur Elec., Inc. v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 281 Ga. 773, 642 S.E.2d 830 (2007).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2007–2016 · leading case: City of Coll. Park v. Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC, 771 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Coll. Park v. Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC, 771 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 16× “OCGA § 36-91-91. With regard to ante litem notice, OCGA § 36-33-5 (a) pertinently provides: No .”

McArthur Elec., Inc. v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 642 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 36-91-91. Here, the payment bond that was provided by the General Contractor in compliance with OCGA§ 36-91-90 is available to McArthur.”

Jacks v. City of Atlanta, 644 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “6 Jacks’s claim against the City arises under OCGA § 36-91-91, which provides that “[i]f a payment bond or security deposit is not taken in the manner and form required in this article, the corporation or body for which work is done under the contract shall be liable to all…”

City of Coll. Park, Georgia v. Sekisui Spr Americas, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 14× “” OCGA § 36-91-91. With regard to ante litem notice, OCGA § 36-33-5 (a) pertinently provides that 5 [n]o .”

J. Squared Plumbing Co., Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 786 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “1 The trial court found that the City complied with the payment bond requirements set forth in OCGA § 36-91-91. Accordingly, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that J.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.