for the project. Symons, 94 N.C. App. at 541-42, 380 S.E.2d at 551. The subcontractor failed to pay the supplier for the costs of the equipment. Id. This Court held that the surety on a bond executed by the project’s general contractor was liable to the supplier for these equipment costs. Id. at 546, 380 S.E.2d at 553; see also Beachcrete, Inc. v. Water St. Ctr. Assocs., L.L.C., 172 N.C. App. 156, 159, 615 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2005) (permitting subcontractor to recover under payment bond, despite not being a party to the payment bond, where the bond “expressly state [d] that it was for ‘the benefit of any subcontractor, materialman or laborer.’ ”); Boatwright Distribution & Supply, Inc. v. N. State Mech., Inc., No. COA09-1077, 2010 WL 3464837 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2010) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, NCDOT required APAC to
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 holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond 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 a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation holding that the defendants were entitled to recover as costs not only bond premiums but the additional cost to obtain a letter of credit that was required by the surety as collateral before the issuance of bond