O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-91-95 (2019)

Time limitation

✓ 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

No action can be instituted on the payment bonds or security deposits after one year from the completion of the contract and the acceptance of the public works construction by the proper public authorities. Every action instituted under this article shall be brought in the name of the claimant, without the governmental entity for which the work was done or was to be done being made a party thereto.

History

Code 1981, § 36-91-75, enacted by Ga. L. 2000, p. 498, § 1; Code

1981, § 36-91-95, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2001, p. 820, § 12.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Claims arising under payment bond were time-barred. - Summary judgment was properly entered for a surety on a subcontractor’s breach of an implied contract, bad faith breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment claims as all of the claims arose from work performed while the surety was acting as surety on the payment bond and from the surety’s refusal to pay the subcontractor under the payment bond; thus, O.C.G.A. § 36-91-95 applied and the claims were time barred. Masonry Specialists of Ga., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 273 Ga. App. 774, 616 S.E.2d 103 (2005).

Suit on payment bond was time-barred. - Summary judgment was properly entered for a surety on a subcontractor’s suit on a payment bond as the surety produced an affidavit stating that the project was completed and dedicated more than one year before the suit was filed; and the subcontractor failed to show that the affiant was not authorized to accept the completed project. Masonry Specialists of Ga., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 273 Ga. App. 774, 616 S.E.2d 103 (2005). Cited in Complete Wiring Solutions, LLC v. Astra Group, Inc., 335 Ga. App. 723, 781 S.E.2d 597 (2016).

ARTICLE 4 BIDDING FOR GOVERNMENT WORKS PROJECTS

Cross references. - State and private participation in water projects, § 50-23-28.2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2005–2005 · leading case: Masonry Specialists of Georgia, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 616 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Masonry Specialists of Georgia, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 616 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “Masonry Specialists contends that the trial court erred in finding the statute of limitation period had run on its contract claim, arguing that material issues of fact remain on when the project was completed and accepted by the county.”

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.