In Dysart Corp. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 240 Conn. 10, 688 A.2d 306 (1997) the Court disallowed a claim by an endorsee of the wage checks of the employees of a subcontractor. The court did so, however, not on general principles, but on the ground that the claimant failed to prove an assignment of the employees' rights to payment. The court expressly declined to consider whether assignees, as a class, were disqualified from enforcing payment on a bond. Id. at 16. The court in Dysart did note, however, that the United States Supreme Court has held that the scope of protection under the federal Miller Act, upon which our own statutes are based, includes "an assignee of the claims of persons furnishing labor or materials on a bonded project . . . even if the assignee itself did not furnish labor or materials." Dysart Corp. v. Seaboard Surety Co., supra, 240 Conn. at 16. Dysart recognized "the need of every general contractor to protect itself against excessively remote and, from its perspective, undetermined claims." Id. at 19.