the prime contractor from liability to its subcontractor”). 7 .See, e.g., Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc., Franki Found. Co. v. Gill, 652 A.2d 440, 449 (R.I.1994); Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. City of Springfield, 779 S.W.2d 550, 551-52 (Mo.1989) (en banc); St. Paul Dredging Co. v. State, 259 Minn. 398, 107 N.W.2d 717, 724 (Minn.1961); Roof-Techs Int’l, Inc. v. Kansas, 57 P.3d 538, 550-53 (Kan.Ct.App.2002); Metric Constructors, Inc. v. Hawker Siddeley Power Eng’g, Inc., 121 N.C.App. 530, 468 S.E.2d 435, 438-39 (N.C.Ct.App.1996); Schiavone Constr. Co., Inc. v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 209 A.D.2d 598, 619 N.Y.S.2d 117, 118 (N.Y.App.Div.1994); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Cam Constr. Co., Inc., 300 Md. Kensington Corp., 253 N.W.2d at 784 (same) with Claussen Paving Co., 273 S.E.2d at 164 (<HOLDING>); Wexler Constr. Co. v. Housing Auth., 149
holding that prime contractor plaintiffs in an interpleader action could not press arbitration for a counterclaim by a subcontractor holding that prime contractor must prove that it is liable to the subcontractor before it can assert a passthrough claim holding that it is not 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 holding that subcontract requirement that work    be performed in accordance with specifications in prime contract meant that prime contract governed the manner of the performance of the work not    the basis for computing the amount to be paid the subcontractor