A recent Miller Act case, U.S. f/u/b/o Boundless Management Outsourcing Group, LLC v. Endurance Assurance Corp, 2026 WL 2241491 (D. Puerto Rico 2026), confirms two important points when it comes to the Miller Act. In this case, a subcontractor pursued a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit more than one year after its work was finished. The subcontractor also asserted a claim against the federal government. The lawsuit was dismissed. Below are two takeaway points to consider if you are dealing with a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.

First, as it relates the claim against the federal government, the federal district court followed authority that held that the Miller Act does NOT include a waiver of sovereign immunity against the federal government. “[T]he Court does not identify any clear language in the Miller Act expressly waiving the United States or its agencies’ sovereign immunity.” Endurance Assurance Corp., supra at *3.

Second, a lawsuit under the Miller Act “‘must be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.’” Endurance Assurance Corp, supra at *3 (quoting the Miller Act). The subcontractor tried to argue around the statute of limitations by arguing the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, a super tough argument. A reason it’s tough is because, “[u]ltimately, ‘[t]he fundamental principle is that equitable tolling is appropriate only when the circumstances that cause a party to miss a filing deadline are out of his hands.’” Endurance Assurance Corp., supra at *4 (citation omitted). Now, try arguing or proving that!!!

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.