Noland Co. v. Armco, Inc.

Wilner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. During the period from June 8,1979, to January 16,1980, appellant furnished various plumbing supplies to a company called S. G. Incorporated (S.G.I.) S.G.I. was a subcontractor engaged by Armco, Inc. (Armco), a general contractor, to do work on a construction project for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC). WSSC is a State agency (see Katz v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 284 Md. 503 (1979); Prince George’s County v. Blumberg, 288 Md. 275 (1980), cert. den. 449 U.S. 1082 (1981)) and thus the project was subject to the provisions and requirements of the State’s "Little Miller Act” — Md. Code art. 21, § 3-501 (formerly Real Prop, art., § 9-113). In accordance with that statute, Armco furnished a payment and performance bond written by Seaboard Surety Company (Seaboard).

On December 17, 1980, appellant sued S.G.I., Armco, and Seaboard in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, claiming, in essence, that it had not been paid for the supplies furnished to S.G.I., and that it was owed $43,231. The Declaration contained eight counts. The first six were the various "common counts.” Count VII, claiming only against Armco and Seaboard, alleged, in relevant part: "That said materials, supplies and equipment were supplied pursuant to guarantee of Armco, Inc. to pay for said materials, [appellant] being a third-party beneficiary of an agreement between [S.G.I.] and [Armco], a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein and identified as Exhibit B, providing that [Armco] would pay for said materials.” Count VIII claimed against Armco alone, also on the basis that appellant was a third-party beneficiary of the "agreement” between S.G.I. and Armco, attached as Exhibit B. ¹⁴ The "agreement” to which Counts VII and VIII referred was a letter dated August 6,1979 from Armco’s project manager to S.G.I., stating: "Gentlemen: We agree to pay for materials to be incorporated into either of these projects. Shipping papers and invoices should show consignment to the specific project.

Invoices should be sent to you for your approval. You can then give them to us for payment. Invoices must be descriptive enough for us to understand what we are paying for. Also there MUST be a LEGIBLE signature.

All discounts will be credited to our accounts.” (Emphasis in the original.) Armco and Seaboard demurred to Counts VII and VIII on the basis that (1) neither count alleged sufficient facts to show a contractual relationship between appellant and those defendants or that appellant was a third-party beneficiary of any obligation from those defendants to S.G.I.; and (2) Count VII amounted to a claim by a subcontractor under the "Little Miller Act,” but failed to allege the statutorily required notice to Armco and Seaboard. Following appellant’s concession that no such notice could be alleged because no such notice was in fact given, the court sustained the demurrer to Counts VII and VIII without leave to amend. Appellant previously had dismissed the first six counts, and thus the court’s order respecting Counts VII and VIII terminated the entire action. This appeal is from that order, appellant aruging that: "Because the allegations of the declaration were sufficient to allege appellant’s third-party beneficiary status and a direct contractual relationship with the general contractor, thereby eliminating the need for an allegation of notice of claim to said general contractor under the 'Little Miller Act’, the lower court erred in sustaining the demurrer.” ¹⁵ We find no error, and thus shall affirm.

As suggested by appellant’s statement of the issue, and as made clear by the procedural context of the case, the question before us is the sufficiency of appellant’s averments in Counts VII and VIII. A demurrer to a declaration admits the truth of all material facts which have been well pleaded, together with the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Schwartz v.