By J. Timothy Crenshaw, Counsel, Schulman, LeRoy & Bennett, P.C.
The recent decision in Snake Steel, Inc. v. Holladay Construction Group, LLC is significant for subcontractors’ rights with respect to retainage withheld on construction projects in Tennessee. Tennessee’s Prompt Pay Act (the “PPA”) includes a provision requiring that retainage withheld on projects involving $500,000 or more must be deposited into a separate interest bearing escrow account. As an enforcement mechanism the PPA imposes “an additional three hundred dollar ($300) penalty per day for each and every day that such retained funds are not deposited into such escrow account.” The Snake Steel case clarifies the time limit within which a subcontractor must file suit to assert its claim for recovery of the $300 per day penalty payment.
The relevant facts which gave rise to the dispute in Snake Steel were undisputed. The owner of the project failed to deposit the retainage it withheld from the prime contractor (which included the subcontractor’s retainage) into an escrow account as required by the PPA. After the owner released the retainage to the prime contractor, the prime contractor withheld payment of the subcontractor’s retainage (along with payment for some change orders), but also failed to deposit the subcontractor’s retainage into an escrow account. The subcontractor did not file its suit against the prime contractor for payment of these sums until more than two years after the prime contractor had received the retainage from the owner.
The trial court subsequent held that the subcontractor’s claim for the $300 per day penalty was time barred because the applicable statute of limitations for recovery of statutory penalties is one year and, at the latest, the subcontractor’s claim had accrued when it submitted its pay application for the retainage (which was more than a year before it filed suit). Even though it agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the one year statute of limitation for statutory penalties governed the claim, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the trial court had erred on the critical question of when the subcontractor’s cause of action for the $300 per day penalty accrues.
There are at least three important takeaways from the appellate court opinion:
First, the “discovery rule” applies to claims for the $300 per day penalty pursuant to the PPA. A significant factor in the Court’s rationale for applying the “discovery rule” was the fact that subcontractors have no right under the PPA to obtain information regarding whether the escrow account has been established and its retainage deposited therein. Absent application of the discovery rule, inequity would result from application of the statute of limitations since the injury suffered by the subcontractor was “unknown and unknowable” at the time.
Second, regardless of whether or not a subcontractor can utilize the “discovery rule” to preserve the full extent of its claims for the $300 per day penalty, a subcontractor is entitled to the recover the daily penalties for the entire year preceding the date on which it filed its lawsuit and up until the date on which the retained funds are either placed in escrow or paid to the subcontractor. In essence this means that, at a minimum, in situations such as this a subcontractor would be entitled to recovery of at least $109,500. The potential exposure to such liability should be a powerful incentive to contractors to comply with the PPA’s retainage escrow requirement.
Finally, it appears that the result would likely be different as to claims by prime contractors against owners to recover the $300 per day penalty if an owner fails to deposit retainage into escrow. That is because the PPA provides prime contractors with the right to the name of the financial institution with whom that escrow account has been established, the account number and the amount of retainage that is deposited. Additionally, the PPA imposes an affirmative obligation upon a project owner to certify to the prime contractor that it has complied with the escrow requirement upon its withholding of retainage from each and every application for payment. Accordingly, it does not appear that there would be a basis for application of the “discovery rule” since any prime contractor exercising reasonable care and diligence should be able to know if its retainage has been properly deposited.
Mr. Crenshaw is counsel to the firm of Schulman, LeRoy & Bennett, P.C. in Nashville, Tennessee. His practice is focused on construction law and litigation with an emphasis on the representation of specialty trade contractors. He is a member of the Tennessee Association of Construction Counsel and the Tennessee Bar Association and is a former Chair of the TBA Construction Law Section. He may be contacted at Schulman, Leroy & Bennett, P.C., 3310 West End Avenue, Suite 460, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (615-551-6521) or by email: tcrenshaw@slblawfirm.com.
DISCLAIMER
All information and material contained herein is believed to be accurate. Nonetheless, it should not be considered legal advice on any particular topic. All fact patterns are potentially different and you should not act on information contained in this letter without seeking advice from a legal professional specific to your particular situation.
Certifications of Specialization are available to Tennessee lawyers in all areas of practice relating to or included in the area of Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor’s Rights, Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice, Elder Law and Estate Planning. Listing of related or included practice areas herein does not constitute or imply a representation of certification of specialization. Certification as a Construction Law Specialist is not currently available in Tennessee.
