The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of Southern Equipment & Services, LLC (SES) in a significant government contract dispute involving the Miller Act. The court's decision allows SES to continue its claim against Windamir Development, Inc. and Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company for unpaid work related to a military construction project. This ruling is important as it clarifies the statute of limitations for subcontractors under the Miller Act.

The case, Southern Equipment & Services, LLC v. Windamir Development, Inc., was filed under docket number 26-10601. The court's opinion was issued on November 2, 2026, and it addressed the timing of SES's claims regarding the work performed under a subcontract with Windamir. The outcome of this case affects not only SES but also sets a precedent for other subcontractors seeking payment for their work on government contracts.

Background

The dispute began when the United States Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract to Windamir Development, Inc. for constructing a facility at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Windamir, in turn, subcontracted SES to provide equipment and labor for an abrasive blast booth system, which was a crucial component of the project. SES began its work on May 29, 2020, and completed substantial portions of the project by December 21, 2020.

However, after SES completed its work, Windamir failed to pay the remaining balance owed to SES. SES filed a lawsuit on February 22, 2022, asserting claims under the Miller Act, which protects subcontractors by ensuring they receive payment for their work on federal projects. The defendants, Windamir and Berkshire Hathaway, argued that SES's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, claiming that SES had not filed within one year of the last work performed.

The Ruling

The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that SES did indeed perform labor within the one-year timeframe required by the Miller Act. The court noted, "Because we conclude that SES performed labor within one year of filing the lawsuit, we conclude that its Miller Act claim was timely and vacate the part of the district court’s judgment ruling to the contrary." This ruling overturned the lower court's decision, which had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on the claim being untimely.

The court emphasized that the determination of when the last labor was performed is critical for establishing the statute of limitations under the Miller Act. The judges concluded that SES's work in reshooting a training video, which was required by the Corps due to issues with the original video, constituted labor under the Act. The court explained that this work was necessary for government approval and therefore extended the time limit for SES to file its claim.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for subcontractors working on government projects. It clarifies that work performed at the request of a government inspector, particularly when it is necessary for project approval, can be considered qualifying labor for the purposes of the Miller Act's statute of limitations. This interpretation supports the Act's purpose of protecting subcontractors and ensuring they receive payment for their contributions.

The decision also reinforces the importance of a liberal interpretation of the Miller Act, allowing subcontractors like SES to pursue claims even when there are disputes about the timing of their work. As a result, this ruling may encourage more subcontractors to assert their rights under the Miller Act, knowing that their claims may be protected even if there are complexities regarding the timing of their work.

What's Next

The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. It remains to be seen how the district court will handle the case moving forward. There is no indication in the court filing about whether the defendants plan to appeal the decision.