claims for delay damages. We reject United’s argument that Dinwiddie’s subcontractors must first sue Dinwiddie and obtain judgment against it before Dinwiddie may file suit on their behalf. If a prime contractor is contractual ly obligated to pay claims to its subcontractors, then it may bring their claims without first having to wait for the subcontractors to obtain judgment against it in multiple suits in multiple forums. See Howard Contracting v. G.A. MacDonald Constr. Co., 71 Cal.App.4th 38, 83 Cal. Rptr.2d 590, 602 (1998) (arguing that it is well-established that a general contractor is entitled to present the claims of its subcontractors in an action against an owner on a pass-through basis); Bamard-Cwrtiss Co. v. United States, 157 Ct.Cl. 103, 301 F.2d 909, 913 (1962) (<HOLDING>). United farther argues that Dinwiddie was not
holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor holding that subcontractor was not obligated to indemnify general contractor for general contractors own negligence where indemnification clause did not expressly state that subcontractor would indemnify general contractor for such negligence holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law holding that subcontractor can recover in quasicontract from contractor for work not encompassed in the agreement between the two holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor