(a) A contractor who has completed a contract with the Department of Transportation let in accordance with Article 2 of this Chapter and who has not received the amount he claims is due under the contract may submit a verified written claim to the Secretary of Transportation for the amount the contractor claims is due. The claim shall be submitted within 60 days after the contractor receives his final statement from the Department and shall state the factual basis for the claim.
The Secretary or the Secretary's designee shall investigate a submitted claim within 90 days of receiving the claim or within any longer time period agreed to by the Secretary or the Secretary's designee and the contractor. The contractor may appear before the Secretary or the Secretary's designee, either in person or through counsel, to present facts and arguments in support of the claim. The Secretary or the Secretary's designee may allow, deny, or compromise the claim, in whole or in part. The Secretary or the Secretary's designee shall give the contractor a written statement of the decision on the contractor's claim.
(b) A contractor who is dissatisfied with the Secretary or the Secretary's designee's decision on the contractor's claim may commence a contested case on the claim under Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. The contested case shall be commenced within 60 days of receiving the written statement of the decision.
(c) As to any portion of a claim that is denied by the Secretary or the Secretary's designee, the contractor may, in lieu of the procedures set forth in subsection (b) of this section, within six months of receipt of the final decision, institute a civil action for the sum he claims to be entitled to under the contract by filing a verified complaint and the issuance of a summons in the Superior Court of Wake County or in the superior court of any county where the work under the contract was performed. The procedure shall be the same as in all civil actions except that all issues shall be tried by the judge, without a jury.
(d) The provisions of this section shall be part of every contract let in accordance with Article 2 of this Chapter between the Department of Transportation and a contractor. A provision in a contract that conflicts with this section is invalid. (1939, c. 318; 1947, c. 530; 1957, c. 65, s. 11; 1963, c. 667; 1965, c. 55, s. 11; 1967, c. 873; 1973, c. 507, ss. 5, 17, 18; 1977, c. 464, s. 7.1; 1983, c. 761, s. 191; 1987, c. 847, s. 3; 2009-266, s. 16.)
Notes of Decisions
Nello L. Teer Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 625 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 30× “Even assuming, without deciding, that a failure to comply with the statutory requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29 (2005) violates the State’s sovereign immunity, the effect of the General Assembly’s amendment to § 136-29 in 1987 was to make the time limitations in that…”
Companies v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 587 S.E.2d 426 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “Moreover, the General Assembly enacted N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29 to provide a statutory ground that allows a contractor to bring suit *158 against the Department of Transportation.”
Battle Ridge Cos. v. Dept. of Transp., 587 S.E.2d 426 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “Moreover, the General Assembly enacted N.C. Gen.Stat. § 136-29 to provide a statutory ground that allows a contractor to bring suit against the Department of Transportation.”
Huyck Corp. v. C. C. Mangum, Inc., 309 S.E.2d 183 (N.C. 1983).
· cites it 12× “This appeal involves the interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29 , which permits claims against the State of North Carolina for monies allegedly due pursuant to highway construction contracts.”
A.H. Beck Found. Co. v. Jones Bros., 603 S.E.2d 819 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 21× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29 was enacted to provide a statutory ground under which contractors may sue NCDOT, and the statute is made a part of every contract for highway construction entered into by NCDOT.”
Smith v. State, 222 S.E.2d 412 (N.C. 1976).
· cites it 3× “In addition, G.S. § 136-29 (b) (1974) allows a road construction contractor to sue if his contract claim is denied by the State Highway Administrator and G.”
Nello L. Teer Co. v. Jones Bros., Inc., 641 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 9× “”) NCDOT incorporates N.C.G.S. § 136-29 into every contract for highway construction as a statutory ground under which contractors may sue.”
LA Reynolds Co. v. State High. Comm'n, 155 S.E.2d 473 (N.C. 1967).
· cites it 15× “In its motion it moved that plaintiff’s complaint “be dismissed upon the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action”, and in support of its motion defendant alleged, in summary, except when quoted: (a) That this proceeding is an appeal…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Blue, 556 S.E.2d 609 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× ““ ‘The Department of Transportation, except as provided in G.S. 136-29 (construction contract claims)’ is expressly exempt from the contested case provisions.”
Wilmington Shipyard, Inc. v. North Carolina State High. Comm'n, 171 S.E.2d 222 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 13× “* *” Plaintiff contends that it is authorized to maintain this suit by G.S. 136-29, which permits the filing of an action in the superior court in certain cases and subject to conditions precedent as specified in the statute.”
E. F. Blankenship Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 339 S.E.2d 439 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 14× “This action was brought pursuant to G.S. 136-29 which provides in part: (a) Upon the completion of any contract for the construction of any State highway awarded by the Department of Transportation to any contractor, if the contractor fails to receive such settlement as he…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29(a) — 2 cases
E. F. Blankenship Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 339 S.E.2d 439 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
“This action was brought pursuant to G.S. 136-29 which provides in part: (a) Upon the completion of any contract for the construction of any State highway awarded by the Department of Transportation to any contractor, if the contractor fails to receive such settlement as he…”
LA Reynolds Co. v. State High. Comm'n, 155 S.E.2d 473 (N.C. 1967).
“In its motion it moved that plaintiff’s complaint “be dismissed upon the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action”, and in support of its motion defendant alleged, in summary, except when quoted: (a) That this proceeding is an appeal…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29(b) — 6 cases
Huyck Corp. v. C. C. Mangum, Inc., 309 S.E.2d 183 (N.C. 1983).
“This appeal involves the interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29 , which permits claims against the State of North Carolina for monies allegedly due pursuant to highway construction contracts.”
LA Reynolds Co. v. State High. Comm'n, 155 S.E.2d 473 (N.C. 1967).
“In its motion it moved that plaintiff’s complaint “be dismissed upon the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action”, and in support of its motion defendant alleged, in summary, except when quoted: (a) That this proceeding is an appeal…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29(c) — 2 cases
Nello L. Teer Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 625 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
“Even assuming, without deciding, that a failure to comply with the statutory requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29 (2005) violates the State’s sovereign immunity, the effect of the General Assembly’s amendment to § 136-29 in 1987 was to make the time limitations in that…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29(d) — 2 cases
E. F. Blankenship Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 339 S.E.2d 439 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
“This action was brought pursuant to G.S. 136-29 which provides in part: (a) Upon the completion of any contract for the construction of any State highway awarded by the Department of Transportation to any contractor, if the contractor fails to receive such settlement as he…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29(e) — 1 case
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.