by proceeding under a theory of equitable subrogation. Id. at 6-8. Finally, WFIC disputes that BAC is an assignee of any viable claim under the Payment Bond. DE 54 at 9-10. The Court will address each argument in turn. 1. BAC Is Not a Proper Miller Act Payment Bond Claimant BAC, as a lender, does not come under the protections of the Miller Act, and cannot bring a direct claim to recover under the Payment Bond. “The purpose of a Miller Act payment bond is to protect subcontractors and suppliers who provide labor and material for a federal project....” United States ex rel. Pertun Constr. Co. v. Harvesters Grp., Inc., 918 F.2d 915, 917 (11th Cir.1990). The Miller Act specifically requires a contractor on a federal public works project to obtain a pa , 107 F. 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1901) (<HOLDING>). Because BAC did not furnish labor or
holding that persons supplying labor or materials to a subcontractor on a public works project may seek reimbursement under a statutory payment bond provided by the general contractor holding that payment bond protecting suppliers of labor and material does not extend to a bank which might lend money for the purpose of paying for such work and materials holding that surety was liable to subcontractor on payment bond because payment bond applied to any claimant who among other things supplied materials that were reasonably required for use in the performance of the subcontract  holding that bond protecting those persons who do work or furnish materials did not protect bank lending money to contractor for payment to those persons holding that a paywhenpaid clause does not preclude a subcontractors recovery under the miller act payment bond because the federal legislation conditions payment of the subcontractor not on payment by the government to the contractor but rather on the passage of time from completion of the work or provision of materials