You Have to Be Kidding Me!
|
|
- Lorraine Jones
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance Bond Obligee s Obligations to the Surety? David D. Gilliss Pike & Gilliss LLC 600 Washington Ave Ste 303 Towson, MD Bruce W. Kahn Berkley Surety Group 412 Mt. Kemble Ave Ste 310N Morrristown, NJ 07960
2 David D. Gilliss is a founding member of the law firm of Pike & Gilliss, LLC located in Towson, Maryland. His practice focuses on surety, construction, and fidelity related claims on behalf of sureties, contractors, and fidelity carriers. His practice also includes litigation of general commercial and regulatory claims and administrative actions. Mr. Gilliss co-authored Surety Bonds and Insurance in the Construction Industry, Arbitration of Construction in Commercial Cases and Maryland Construction Law: What Do You Do When and has written numerous articles and papers on surety, fidelity and construction-related issues. Bruce W. Kahn is a commercial attorney whose practice focuses on the construction, surety, and real estate industries. He presently heads the claims department as a vice president at Berkley Surety Group, a W.R. Berkley Company. He is a graduate of Albany Law School and he also holds a master of business administration degree from Cornell University s S.C. Johnson School of Business. The authors would like to thank Alexander Kahn of Pike & Gilliss, LLC, for his assistance in drafting this paper.
3 You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance Bond Obligee s Obligations to the Surety? Table of Contents I. You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance Bond Obligee s Obligations to the Surety?...5 Endnotes...9 You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance... Gilliss and Kahn 3
4
5 You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance Bond Obligee s Obligations to the Surety? I. You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance Bond Obligee s Obligations to the Surety? Sureties and their claims counsel often see situations where a bonded principal may have failed, at least by some measure, to properly perform its contractual obligations, resulting in a claim on the performance bond. There is a corresponding scenario that we have observed, however, where the bonded obligee has failed in the discharge of its obligations under the construction contract, as much if not more so, than the principal. This may be due to a lack of proper project oversight, a failure to properly manage a schedule, or an inability or unwillingness to address project problems early when they may fixable or at least less expensive to fix, and before they metastasize into bigger and more material problems. Under these circumstances, we see the obligee looking to the bond as insurance against its own incompetence in project administration rather than as security for the principal s performance, which is the bond s intended purpose. This observation, in turn, led to our ideas for this DRI Fidelity and Surety Roundtable discussion point summarized as follows: Is there a duty of competent project administration owed to the surety? Surety counsel often frame arguments based on an obligee s actions as a defense to the claim. Such an approach is not wrong. Nonetheless, framing the issue as a defense colors the entire claims process. 1 It may even limit a claims analysis unintentionally so. This may have something to do with the very nature of the three-party bond relationship structure. The surety enters into a three-party agreement where the bond principal pays a premium to the surety, enters into a general agreement of indemnity in favor of the surety, and by definition the bond principal is the primary obligor to the obligee. In exchange, the surety is secondarily liable to the obligee. What is often forgotten, presumably due in large part to the fact that the dictionary definition of obligee is one to whom another is obligated, is that the obligee has obligations of its own. And therein is the focus of our discussion. We want to engage in a discussion of what specific affirmative obligations a general contractor owes the surety when it requires a particular subcontractor on one of its jobs to obtain a performance bond. For instance, consider the following: A surety receives a claim on its performance bond from an obligee. The allegations are of defective or omitted work, or longstanding delays. An elevator jack was improperly welded, a back-up battery system was missed, and patio doors in an entire luxury high rise building were put in with a one inch gap between the floor and frame. As the surety s investigation proceeds, it becomes apparent that the obligee knew or should have known that there were problems with the principal s performance and that the obligee might have been negligent or incompetent in its project oversight. Now the obligee is looking to the surety to fix the problem. One reason why we are intrigued by a duty of competent project administration is because the question turns the focus of a dispute from that of the principal s conduct on the project to the obligee s own conduct on the project. Of course, many construction contracts have provisions which act to shift risk from the obligee onto the principal, for example no damages for delay clauses, or provisions that insulate the obligee from a duty of oversight, or for other areas of project administration. Another example of a risk shifting mechanism, in the context of where the bond obligee is the project general contractor, is the so-called Pay-If-Paid You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance... Gilliss and Kahn 5
6 payment provision. In states where such a clause is enforceable, the bond obligee can effectively transfer the risk of non-payment downstream to its bonded subcontractors. By way of further example, it has often been said that the sometimes onerous terms contained in many public construction contracts serve as a means to protect the public from its own sometimes weak project management. Onerous contract provisions may serve to protect, and even encourage, poorly managed projects, to the detriment not only of all parties to the contract, but also to subs and suppliers, and even (on public projects) the taxpayers who funded the project. From the perspective of the surety, under these circumstances we think it is reasonable for the surety to ask if the obligee owes the surety any duties of competent project administration separate from either the underlying contract or through the bond itself. This argument may well fall under the obligee s duty to mitigate damages, to protect the surety s collateral, or perhaps the defense of overpayment (which itself is based on the obligee s duty to preserve the contract balances as the surety s collateral). Perhaps the argument falls under the obligee s implied duty of good faith and fair dealing included in any contract, the breach of any material part of which might provide the surety with a defense under the performance bond. At a conceptual level, it could be argued that the defenses of mitigation of damages, the duty to preserve contract balances, and the duty of good faith all add up to a duty to competently administer the project that runs through the bond to the surety. We submit as a matter of basic contract law and as a matter of fundamental coverage, that the performance bond guarantees the principal s completion of the contract. When our underwriters assess a risk, they are primarily looking at the principal s capital, capacity, and character. While the obligee s reputation may factor into the credit analysis as to whether to issue a particular bond, underwriters attempt to perform their financial risk analysis by examining the principal s ability to complete the project. They also focus on, among other considerations, whether the principal fairly priced the project. It s fair to say that the obligee s good faith and competence is probably treated as a given under usual circumstances. The underwriters certainly do not look at the bond as insurance against the obligee s own incompetence or negligence in project administration. When investigating a performance bond claim, a surety sometimes discovers that the bond principal encountered unexpected cash flow problems which led to the contractor s eventual inability to complete the project. In such a situation, the surety, as part of its bond claim investigation, will seek to analyze the project bid spread to determine whether the bond principal significantly underbid the job. If so, the obligee may have breached its obligation to determine whether the contractor could have reasonably been expected to perform the work for the amount bid on the project. Take for instance a case with the following facts. A general contractor receives three sealed bids from several plumbing subcontractors. The bids received are for $2,150,000, $2,050,000 and $900,000. Assuming the general contractor chooses the low bid, it is choosing a subcontractor which is offering a price that is less than half of the next lowest bid. Then, assume the general contractor requires the subcontractor to obtain a performance bond without notifying the subcontractor or the surety that an excessively large bid spread exists, and without giving the bidder the opportunity to examine the integrity of its bid. If all that occurs, the general contractor may well have withheld material information from both the subcontractor and the surety. Such a decision may be determined to have had a material impact on the subcontractor s ability to perform the work, and may even serve to at least partially relieve the surety from any obligation to perform under the bond. In fact, when a general contractor receives a bid that is substantially lower than the other bids received, that general contractor is on inquiry notice that the bid may be erroneous and under-bid. Pickus Construction and Equipment v. American Overhead Door, 761 N.E. 2d 356 (Ill. Ct. App. 2001)( It is generally 6 Fidelity and Surety Roundtable May 2017
7 true that a general contractor that receives a bid that is substantially lower than other bids it receives is on notice that the bid may be erroneous. ); U.S. v. Sabin Metal Corp., 151 F.Supp. 683 (D.N.Y. 1957)( If the party receiving the offer or the bid knows or has reason to know because of the amount of the bid, or otherwise, that the bidder made a mistake, the contract is voidable by the bidder. ). 2 Courts from around the country have consistently held that when a general contractor receives a bid that is substantially lower than the other bids received, that general contractor is on inquiry notice that the bid may be erroneous and that the general contractor should not rely on the bid without further inquiry. For example, in S. N. Nielsen Co. v. National Heat & Power Co., a general contractor sued a subcontractor under a theory of promissory estoppel, arguing that it detrimentally relied on a bid which the subcontractor eventually withdrew. 32 Ill. App. 3d 941 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1975). The court, however, affirmed the trial court s decision that the general contractor should not have relied on the bid because it should have known the bid was mistaken in light of the fact that the bid was $286,000 (or nearly 50%) less than the only other contractor who bid on the same scope of work. The court also noted that while a 50% difference in bids is plainly egregious, smaller percentage differences can also be unreasonable to rely on. Id. at 946 citing Union Tank Car Co. v. Wheat Bros., 15 Utah 2d 101 (Utah 1964)(held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where there was a 35% difference between the low price and the next lowest bid). If the obligee does not investigate the bid spread, and does not notify the surety, then the bond is likely voidable by the surety. The Restatement (Third) of Suretyship and Guaranty 12(1) states that if a surety s assent to the issuance of a surety bond is induced by a material misrepresentation, the surety bond is voidable by the surety. The Restatement further sets out at 12(3) that if before the surety bond becomes binding, the obligee: (1) knows facts unknown to the surety that materially increase the risk beyond that which the obligee has reason to believe the surety intends to assume; and (2) has reason to believe that these facts are unknown to the surety; and (3) has a reasonable opportunity to communicate them to the surety, the obligee s nondisclosure of the facts to the surety constitutes a material misrepresentation. If the obligee is aware of the disparate bid spread but does not notify the surety, the surety might also raise the obligee s lack of good faith. As stated by the Fifth Circuit, if an obligee knew of facts unknown to the surety and which he had reason to believe were not known to the surety, the facts materially increased the obligor s risk and the creditor had adequate time to disclose them but failed in his responsibility then the obligee loses its ability to call on the bond. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp., 646 F.2d 1064, 1073 (5th Cir. 1981). This defense, however, is not absolute. Some courts hold that the obligee must have a duty to inform the surety created by some sort of relationship between the parties. See Rachman Bag Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1995). Others hold that the surety must investigate on its own and if it does not, then the surety is without recourse even if the obligee withheld information. Turner Constr. Co. v. First Indem. of Am. Ins. Co., 829 F. Supp. 752, 761 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff d 22 F.3d 303 (3rd Cir. 1994). In short, the bid spread is one of the most important pieces of a surety s investigation into a performance failure. A low bid puts the obligee on notice that it should explore why the bid was so low and if it did not do so, the surety should conduct its own investigation, including determining whether the contract is voidable, and whether the surety can assert that the oblige has lost its right to demand that the surety perform under the bond. Assuming that a low bid is not at issue, under the terms of most performance bonds, the Surety has two options after the obligee declares a default. The surety must either 1) undertake to complete or correct the work or arrange for its completion or correction at its sole expense; or 2) pay the obligee to complete or correct the work up to the full penal sum of the bond. Typical performance bonds do not contain language that You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance... Gilliss and Kahn 7
8 would permit the obligee to unilaterally complete performance. Likewise, under the common law, a surety has a right to choose to either complete performance or finance the obligee s completion. See, e.g., Granite Computer Leasing Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 894 F.2d 547, 551 (2d Cir. 1990); Island Co. v. Hawaiian Foliage & Landscape, Inc., 288 F.3d 1161, 1170 (9th Cir. 2002); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States, 845 F.2d 971, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Morrison Assurance Co., Inc. v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 626, 632 (1983); Morgenthau v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 94 F.2d 632, 635 (D.C. Cir. 1937). In light of the surety s clear options on how to handle its obligations under a performance bond, an obligee must permit the surety to mitigate its damages. This right to mitigate damages is a well-established right held by sureties. For instance, in Int l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Americaribe-Moriarty JV, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a surety on a subcontract performance bond U.S. App. LEXIS 3628 (11th Cir. Fla. Feb. 28, 2017). In that case, the bond principal gave notice of default to the subcontractor and surety and the surety responded that it would need to investigate the claim. The bond principal then engaged a replacement subcontractor and, over the surety s objection, negotiated a contract with the replacement subcontractor. The trial court granted summary judgment because the bond principal failed to satisfy the conditions precedent set forth in A312 bonds that the surety has an opportunity to determine performance. Similarly, in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. City of Green River, the obligee, the State of Wyoming Joint Powers Water Board, refused to permit the surety to complete performance of the project after the obligee declared the principal in default. 93 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Wy. 2000). The obligee s rationale was that the surety s planned performance was unacceptable as the surety would not finish the project within the time set forth in the original contract and that the surety intended to use the principal s employees in furtherance of performance. However, the court held the obligee materially breached the contract because the surety has a right to mitigate damages. The court stated: The effect of the Board s termination of [the surety] was to divest [the surety] of its ability to minimize its liability by selecting the lowest cost option and directing the construction or participating in the contractor selection process. Courts have consistently held that an obligee s action that deprives a surety of its ability to protect itself pursuant to performance options granted under a performance bond constitutes a material breach, which renders the bond null and void. Id. at Likewise, in Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Town of Greenfield, the obligee notified the surety of their contractor s default, the surety offered to complete the work but the obligee refused, completing the work without the surety. 266 F. Supp. 2d 189 (D. Mass. 2003). The surety sued and the court held that the obligee s refusal to allow the surety to complete the project rendered the bond null and void and discharged the surety from any and all liability under the bond. Id. at 198. In some instances the obligee will completely fail to notify the surety of a performance default at all until performance is already undertaken by the obligee. In those instances the bond is null and void. For example, in Hunt Constr. Group, Inc. v. Nat l Wrecking Corp., a general contractor waited until after the subcontractor s excavation work was done to make a claim under the bond for the general contractor s additional expenditures caused by the subcontractor s default. 542 F. Supp. 2d 87, 95 (D.D.C. 2008). The court, however, held that when an obligee fails to notify a surety of an obligor s default in a timely fashion, so that the surety can exercise its options under the controlling performance bond, the obligee renders the bond null and void. The court reasoned that any other interpretation would transform a surety into a commercial guarantor for the obligee. Id. at Fidelity and Surety Roundtable May 2017
9 The Hunt decision was anything but novel as many other cases also stand for the proposition that the failure of an obligee to notify the surety of a default until after performance is completed renders a performance bond null and void. See e.g., CC-Aventura, Inc. v. Weitz Co., LLC, 492 F. App x 54, (11th Cir. 2012); Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Town of Greenfield, ex rel. Greenfield Middle Sch. Bldg. Comm., 370 F.3d 215, (1st Cir. 2004). In fact, the Fifth Circuit created the standard that an obligee must not only notify the surety of a default but that the notice must be clear and unequivocal. L & A Contracting Co. v. S. Concrete Servs., Inc., 17 F.3d 106, 111 (5th Cir. 1994). In L&A Contracting, the letters from the obligee to the surety never contained the word default which signaled to the court that the obligee failed to make an unequivocal declaration of default. Id. In sum, an obligee must notify the surety in clear and unequivocal language that its principal has defaulted prior to taking any actions. The surety is then allowed the opportunity to perform and mitigate its own damages. If the obligee fails to provide notice, or provides improper notice, then the surety may be within its rights, following an investigation, to declare the bond null and void. 3 This paper only discusses two of the many duties which the obligee owes to the bond principal; the duty to properly administer the contract (including assessing the validity of any bids received), and the duty to mitigate damages. As previously stated, the obligee has certain of its own obligations when administering a contract, and its own failures may well lead to a defense by a surety to a performance bond claim. In sum, the obligee does in fact have important and material obligations on any construction contract, and those obligations begin prior to entering into a contract with the principal, and end only after completion of the project. If the obligee fails in its responsibilities, the surety may very well have the right to assert that the obligee s actions led to a discharge of the surety s performance bond obligations. Endnotes 1 This paper is not a thorough review of all available defenses to a surety (nor is it intended to be). For a comprehensive review of the established suretyship defenses available to the surety, see The Law of Performance Bonds, Second Edition, Chapter 12 by Julia Blackwell Gelinas and Genise W. Teich. 2 See also Alta Electric & Mechanical Co. v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 466, (1940); White v. Berrenda Mesa Water Dist., 7 Cal. App. 3d 894 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1970)(Where the low bidder realized it had made a mistake prior to the obligee accepting or rejecting any of the nine total bids, the obligee was not permitted to keep the surety bond worth 10% of the contract price as compensation for choosing the next lowest bidder). 3 Some, but not all, jurisdictions require that the surety show that it was prejudiced by the obligee s failure to give notice. See Town of Plainfield v. Paden Engineering Co., Inc., 943 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)(under Indiana law late notice late was presumptively prejudicial) but see Wise Invs. Inc. v. Bracy Contr., Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 390 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (under Pennsylvania law, surety must show that late notice resulted in prejudice to its position as surety). You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance... Gilliss and Kahn 9
10
What To Do With Performance Bonds When Projects Default
What To Do With Performance Bonds When Projects Default By Gary Strong January 18, 2018, 3:12 PM EST In today s economic climate, performance bonds are important for construction contracts. While performance
More informationINTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Page 1 2 of 35 DOCUMENTS INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees, versus AMERICARIBE-MORIARTY
More informationTWENTY FOURTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Charleston, South Carolina April 18th & 19th, 2013
TWENTY FOURTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Charleston, South Carolina April 18th & 19th, 2013 DON T BE PUT OFF BY SETOFF PRESENTED BY: Toby Pilcher The Hanover Insurance Group
More informationCase No UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION U.S. Dist.
Page 1 THE LASALLE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. JST PROPERTIES, L.L.C., d/b/a GULF COAST CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., and AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 10-14380 UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationTWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE APRIL 23-24, 2015
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE APRIL 23-24, 2015 LOSS CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR THE SURETY PRIOR TO FORMAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT OR TERMINATION TAMMY N. GIROUX, ESQUIRE Shumaker,
More informationTWENTY SEVENTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
TWENTY SEVENTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Charleston, South Carolina st nd APRIL 21 & 22, 2016 A SURETY'S RIGHT TO SETTLE CLAIMS OVER A PRINCIPAL'S OBJECTION PRESENTED BY: Amy
More informationChapter Three. Bidding. Patrick M. Miller and Molly Moss
Chapter Three Bidding Patrick M. Miller and Molly Moss 3.01 Introduction...24 3.02 Mutual Mistake...24 3.03 Unilateral Mistake before Award of Contract...27 3.04 Unilateral Mistake after Award of Contract...28
More informationSURETY TODAY PRESENTATION Given by Michael A. Stover and George J. Bachrach Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP Baltimore, MD February 13, 2017
SURETY TODAY PRESENTATION Given by Michael A. Stover and George J. Bachrach Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP Baltimore, MD February 13, 2017 SURETY CASE LAW UPDATE WHAT WE HAVE FOUND INTERESTING OVER THE
More informationCURTISS-MANES-SCHULTE, INC., Plaintiff, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. 2:14-cv NKL
Page 1 CURTISS-MANES-SCHULTE, INC., Plaintiff, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. 2:14-cv-04100-NKL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, CENTRAL DIVISION
More informationCRITERIA FOR CHOOSING BETWEEN CONSENSUS DOCS AND AIA BOND FORMS. I don't want no ConsensusDOCS bond form or do I???
CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING BETWEEN CONSENSUS DOCS AND AIA BOND FORMS Or I don't want no ConsensusDOCS bond form or do I??? Deborah S. Griffin Gina A. Fonte Holland & Knight LLP Boston, MA 02116 Presented at
More informationKNOW YOUR BOND BEFORE YOU SIGN
by Mark H. McCallum and Robert J. Duke...an important part of the surety underwriting process is to know and understand the terms of the construction contract. KNOW YOUR BOND BEFORE YOU SIGN A contractor
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Appellant, Case No. SC Lower Tribunal No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DAVID BOLAND, INCORPORATED, vs. Appellant, Case No. SC02-2210 Lower Tribunal No. 01-17246 INTERCARGO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. / ON A QUESTION CERTIFIED
More informationTWENTY FIFTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE New Orleans, Louisiana APRIL 10 TH & 11 TH, 2014
TWENTY FIFTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE New Orleans, Louisiana APRIL 10 TH & 11 TH, 2014 WHAT IS A DEFAULT AND WHY DOES IT MATTER PRESENTED BY: Jarrod W. Stone, Esquire Manier
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-84C (Filed: November 19, 2014 FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, et al. v. Plaintiffs, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Tucker Act;
More informationSOURCE ONE SURETY, LLC.
SOURCE ONE SURETY, LLC. 15233 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE 500 SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403 GENERAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT THIS General Agreement of Indemnity (hereinafter called Agreement ), is made and entered into
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KEL HOMES, LLC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D05-3547 ) MICHAEL
More informationTWENTY EIGHTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
TWENTY EIGHTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Nashville, Tennessee th st APRIL 20 & 21, 2017 TO PAY OR TO PLAY: OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE SURETY: FINANCE OR TAKEOVER? PRESENTED BY:
More informationNevada Supreme Court Declares Pay-If-Paid Clauses Unenforceable Or Did It?
Nevada Supreme Court Declares Pay-If-Paid Clauses Unenforceable Or Did It? by Greg Gledhill, Associate For decades, pay-if-paid and/or pay-when-paid clauses have appeared in typical construction subcontracts.
More informationEIGHTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE APRIL 3-4, 1997 EXONERATION BASICS: ENFORCING THE SURETY'S RIGHTS
EIGHTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE APRIL 3-4, 1997 EXONERATION BASICS: ENFORCING THE SURETY'S RIGHTS PRESENTED BY: L. GRAVES STIFF, III, ESQ. STARNES & ATCHISON Seventh Floor,
More informationCont Casualty Co v. Fleming Steel Co
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-25-2011 Cont Casualty Co v. Fleming Steel Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-4524
More informationPritchett Controls, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
No Shepard s Signal As of: December 4, 2017 8:19 PM Z Pritchett Controls, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. United States District Court for the District of Maryland November 21, 2017, Decided; November
More informationINTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IMLA. Construction Law and Claims for. The Municipal Lawyer. Tuesday. January 7,2008
INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IMLA Program: Construction Law and Claims for The Municipal Lawyer Tuesday. January 7,2008 Title: Defaults/Surety/Termination Issues By Presenter: John P. Markovs
More information2. Bond amount expressed as the financial limit of that obligation;
12:13 BRUNER & O CONNOR ON CONSTRUCTION LAW 2. Bond amount expressed as the financial limit of that obligation; 3. Duration of the bond obligation; 4. Stated trigger of the surety s performance bond liability;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Kareem v. Markel Southwest Underwriters, Inc., et. al. Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AMY KAREEM d/b/a JACKSON FASHION, LLC VERSUS MARKEL SOUTHWEST UNDERWRITERS, INC.
More informationSURETY TODAY PRESENTATION. Given by Michael A. Stover Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP Baltimore, MD May 14, 2018 THE SURETY S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
SURETY TODAY PRESENTATION Given by Michael A. Stover Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP Baltimore, MD May 14, 2018 THE SURETY S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS We all do it. It s practically instinctive. We don t even
More informationFIDELITY AND GUAR. INS. UNDERWRITERS
FIDELITY AND GUAR. INS. UNDERWRITERS v. U.S. Cite as 119 Fed.Cl. 195 (2014) 4. United States O113.12(2) FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSUR- ANCE UNDERWRITERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America,
More informationSURETY TODAY PRESENTATION. Given by Michael A. Stover and George J. Bachrach Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP Baltimore, MD December 11, 2017
SURETY TODAY PRESENTATION Given by Michael A. Stover and George J. Bachrach Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP Baltimore, MD December 11, 2017 Bankruptcy: The Debtor s and the Surety s Rights to the Bonded
More informationARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL TARA L. SOHLMAN 214.712.9563 Tara.Sohlman@cooperscully.com 2019 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. I is not intended
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:07-CV DCK
United States Surety v. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership et al Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:07-CV-00381-DCK UNITED
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NORTHLINE EXCAVATING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 15, 2013 9:05 a.m. v No. 304964 Livingston Circuit Court COUNTY OF LIVINGSTON LIVINGSTON LC No.
More information6 of 75 DOCUMENTS. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, EDIS COMPANY, and BECKER MORGAN GROUP, Defendants.
Page 21 6 of 75 DOCUMENTS RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, EDIS COMPANY, and BECKER MORGAN GROUP, Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-858-JJF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationTWENTY FORTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Charleston, South Carolina APRIL 18 TH & 19 TH, 2013
TWENTY FORTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Charleston, South Carolina APRIL 18 TH & 19 TH, 2013 DRAFTING TAKEOVER AGREEMENTS TO MINIMIZE SURETY'S RISK PRESENTED BY: Rachel Walsh
More informationExhibit A. Anti-Advance Waiver Of Lien Rights Statutes in the 50 States and DC
Exhibit A Anti-Advance Waiver Of Lien Rights Statutes in the 50 States and DC STATE ANTI- ADVANCE WAIVER OF LIEN? STATUTE(S) ALABAMA ALASKA Yes (a) Except as provided under (b) of this section, a written
More informationCheryl Rung v. Pittsburgh Associates
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-12-2013 Cheryl Rung v. Pittsburgh Associates Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-4204
More informationWhat You Should Know About General Agreements of Indemnity and Why You Should Know It
What You Should Know About General Agreements of Indemnity and Why You Should Know It Summary When a contractor (for purposes of this discussion, contractor includes subcontractor) first seeks surety credit,
More informationSOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE APRIL 23-24, 1998
SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE APRIL 23-24, 1998 PERFORMANCE BOND DECLARED NULL AND VOID! SURETY'S DEFENSE ARISING FROM OBLIGEE'S FAILURE TO ALLOW SURETY TO EXERCISE PERFORMANCE BOND OPTIONS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit K-CON, INC., Appellant v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, Appellee 2017-2254 Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 60686, 60687,
More informationSection: FN (Finance) Effective Date: July 1, 2011
Section: FN (Finance) Effective Date: July 1, 2011 Policy Type: Company Wide Revision Date(s): POLICY:. The Rural/Metro Corporation Surety Bond Policy and Procedure has been developed by the Chief Financial
More informationELEVENTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE
ELEVENTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES REVISITED Responses Available to the Surety Robert A. Koenig SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 1000 Jackson Avenue Toledo,
More information-against- C. RYAN EBCOM/H&G LLC SHORT FORM ORDER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- s; SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. JOHN P. DUNNE. Justice TRIAL/lAS, PART 8 C. RYAN EBCOM/H&G
More informationBullet Proof Guaranties
Bullet Proof Guaranties David M. Mannion, Esq. DMannion@BlakeleyLLP.com Blakeley LLP 54 W. 40th Street New York, NY 10018 V. (917) 472-9587 F. (949) 260-0613 www.blakeleyllp.com New York Los Angeles Orange
More informationFIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY Agreement Number: Execution Date: Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS: Surety: First Indemnity of America Insurance
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:18-cv-00203-CDP Doc. #: 48 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 788 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Brown Brothers, The Family LLC, CASE NO.: 2015-CA-10238-O v. Petitioner, LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 2014-CC-15328-O Chronus
More informationFRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION Author: Nasser Hamid Binding: Softcover, 500 pages Publication Price: MYR 200.00 CONTENTS Chapter 1 STATEMENTS, REPRESENTATIONS AND FRAUD Representation Misrepresentation Fraudulent
More informationMEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2016 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 650806/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationSelective Contract Administration Issues. sdvosblaw.com manfredonialaw.com 1
Selective Contract Administration Issues sdvosblaw.com manfredonialaw.com 1 Table of Contents TOPIC PAGE A. Government Personnel s Contract Authority 3-8 Government Authority to Administer Contracts 3
More informationTWENTY THIRD ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 20th - 21st, 2012
TWENTY THIRD ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 20th - 21st, 2012 OVERPAYMENT CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF RECENT FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS: IT'S NOT OVER PRESENTED BY: CHRISTOPHER
More informationAvailability of Surety and Insurance Upon Completion and Beyond
American Bar Association Forum on the Construction Industry Availability of Surety and Insurance Upon Completion and Beyond F. Malcolm Cunningham, Jr. Cunningham Law Firm, P.A. 400 Australian Avenue, Suite
More informationSecuring the Delinquent Account & Alternative Legal Theories to Collect on Delinquent Accounts
Securing the Delinquent Account & Alternative Legal Theories to Collect on Delinquent Accounts David M. Mannion, Esq. DMannion@BlakeleyLLP.com Blakeley LLP 54 W. 40th Street New York, NY 10018 V. (917)
More informationCONTRACTOR INFORMATION - Attach most recent company year-end financial statement or tax return.
This program is not intended for use on the following types of contracts; Subdivision Completion Multi-year Terms Indefinite Quantity Service Contracts Design Build Efficiency Guarantees Software Programs
More information11-cv-1590 GSA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA U.S. Dist. LEXIS
Page 1 FRONTIER CONTRACTING INC.; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 1, Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR, INC.; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, and DOES 1-50, Defendants.
More informationThis action comes before the Court following defendants removal of plaintiff s
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK B.D. COOKE & PARTNERS LIMITED, as Assignee of Citizens Company of New York (in liquidation), -against- CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, LONDON,
More informationCase 1:13-cv LPS Document 34 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 964
Case 1:13-cv-01186-LPS Document 34 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 964 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROSALYN JOHNSON Plaintiff, V. Civ. Act. No. 13-1186-LPS ACE
More informationTWENTY SIXTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
TWENTY SIXTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Clearwater Beach, Florida RD TH APRIL 23 & 24, 2015 HANOVER V. ATLANTIS DRYWALL & FRAMING, et al: ARE INDEMNITY CLAIMS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION?
More informationTWENTY FIFTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE New Orleans, Louisiana APRIL 10 TH & 11 TH, 2014
TWENTY FIFTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE New Orleans, Louisiana APRIL 10 TH & 11 TH, 2014 SURETY LOSS: METHODS FOR SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT PRESENTED BY: Jeffrey S. Price Manier
More informationCONCEPTS, STATUTES & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. Alan W. H. Gourley Mark Ries Yuan Zhou
CONCEPTS, STATUTES & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Alan W. H. Gourley Mark Ries Yuan Zhou 1 Foundational Concepts When the United States enters into contract relations, its rights and duties therein are governed
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60683 Document: 00513486795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar EDWARDS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P.; BEHER HOLDINGS TRUST,
More informationGENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS FORM
MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY (MUTUAL) MERCHANTS NATIONAL BONDING INC. P.O. Box 14498 Des Moines iowa 50306-3498 Phone (800) 678-8171 FAX (515) 243-3854 GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS
More informationLEXSEE 287 N.J. SUPER. 498
Page 1 LEXSEE 287 N.J. SUPER. 498 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 825 FUND SERVICE FACILITIES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:04-cv-01555-SHR Document 20 Filed 12/16/2004 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN ATLANTIC : CIVIL NO. 1:CV-04-1555 INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationGENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS FORM
MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY (MUTUAL) MERCHANTS NATIONAL BONDING, INC. P.O. Box 14498, Des Moines, iowa 50306-3498 Phone (800) 678-8171 FAX (515) 243-3854 GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS
More informationTWENTIETH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
TWENTIETH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Clearwater, Florida th st APRIL 30 & MAY 1, 2009 BACK TO THE FUTURE: HAS BRAMBLE REVIVED THE A311 BONDS AND DO WE REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?
More informationTWENTY SIXTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
TWENTY SIXTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Clearwater Beach, Florida RD TH APRIL 23 & 24, 2015 PRE-LOSS RECOVERY STRATEGIES PRESENTED BY: T. Bennett Acuff Erik P. Raines Hill Ward
More informationCase 5:13-cv CLS Document Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 17 Case: Date Filed: 03/17/2017 Page: 1 of 17
Case 5:13-cv-00427-CLS Document 188-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 17 Case: 16-11476 Date Filed: 03/17/2017 Page: 1 of 17 FILED 2017 Apr-20 AM 08:23 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN
More informationInsight from Carlton Fields
Insight from Carlton Fields 2011 The Surety s Exposure for 1 By Bruce Charles, Lindsay E. Levin, and Mark A. Brown I. INTRODUCTION II. BOND FORMS AND COURT INTERPRETATIONS Although it is generally said
More informationELEVENTH ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE
ELEVENTH ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Financing the Principal - Panel Discussion (including an analysis of the circumstances under which a surety would consider financing a principal,
More informationIn these difficult economic times, well-drafted guaranties are a hedge against a
WINNING GUARANTIES In these difficult economic times, well-drafted guaranties are a hedge against a borrower s bankruptcy filing or the return of damaged collateral. Under a properly crafted guaranty,
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Debtor. Case No Chapter 7
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: Richard Michael Wilcox, Debtor. Case No. 02-66238 Chapter 7 / Michigan Web Press, Inc., v. Richard Michael Wilcox, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv TCB
Case: 16-12015 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 1 of 15 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-12015 D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00086-TCB ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE
More informationCase 2:12-cv GP Document 27 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 27 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUE VALERI, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION v. : : MYSTIC INDUSTRIES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DAVID BOLAND, INCORPORATED, Appellant, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ---------------------------------------- DAVID BOLAND, INCORPORATED, Appellant, vs. INTERCARGO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. ---------------------------------------- Case
More informationTORTIOUS BAD FAITH CLAIMS AGAINST SURETIES - NOT IN NEVADA. Great American Insurance Company v. General Builders, Inc.
TORTIOUS BAD FAITH CLAIMS AGAINST SURETIES - NOT IN NEVADA by Sharon A. Parker, Associate* Construction in Las Vegas is booming. There are currently over 100 major construction projects at various stages
More informationThe Troubled Public Construction Project: When is it Time to Call in the Surety?
City Attorneys Department League of California Cities Annual Conference October 6, 2005 The Troubled Public Construction Project: When is it Time to Call in the Surety? Michael N. Conneran, Esq. Hanson,
More informationTWENTY EIGHTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
TWENTY EIGHTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Nashville, Tennessee th st APRIL 20 & 21, 2017 RISKY BUSINESS: IMPAIRMENT OF SURETYSHIP, AND THE RESTATEMENT PRESENTED BY: GREGORY R.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No Filed July 30, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Cynthia
CITY OF BURLINGTON, IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 12-1985 Filed July 30, 2014 S.G. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON FILED THE TIPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BY TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF April 7, 1998 EDUCATION, Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate
More informationEXHIBIT WARRANTY BOND. (Address), hereinafter called Principal, and
EXHIBIT WARRANTY BOND ITEMS MDX PROCUREMENT/CONTRACT NO.: Bond No.: KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, (Name) of (Address), hereinafter called Principal, and (Name) of (Address), hereinafter
More informationIn this appeal, Environmental Staffing Acquisition Corp. ( En-Staff ) argues that the trial court erred in sustaining the
PRESENT: All the Justices ENVIRONMENTAL STAFFING ACQUISITION CORPORATION OPINION BY v. Record No. 111067 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL April 20, 2012 B & R CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GRAND SUMMIT HOTEL CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION. L.B.O. HOLDING, INC. d/b/a ATTITASH MOUNTAIN RESORT
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More information(01/31/13) Principal Name /PIA No. PAYMENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT No.
PAYMENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT No. THIS PAYMENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (as amended and supplemented, this Agreement ) is executed by each of the undersigned on behalf of each Principal (as defined below)
More informationTENTH ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE OCTOBER 21-22, 1999
TENTH ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE OCTOBER 21-22, 1999 NAMED OBLIGEE S RIGHTS UNDER THE PAYMENT BOND (ARE THERE ANY?); RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS ON THE OBLIGEE S RIGHTS ON EXHAUSTION
More informationGuthrie Clinic LTD v. Travelers Indemnity
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-29-2004 Guthrie Clinic LTD v. Travelers Indemnity Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-3502
More informationTHIRTEENTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Charleston, SC April 25-26, 2002
THIRTEENTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Charleston, SC April 25-26, 2002 JEWELS IN THE INDEMNITY AGREEMENT, AND A LUMP OF COAL PRESENTED BY: JOHN V. BURCH, ESQ. BOVIS, KYLE & BURCH,
More informationUnited States ex rel. Steele v. Turn Key Gaming, Inc.
Caution As of: November 11, 2013 9:47 AM EST United States ex rel. Steele v. Turn Key Gaming, Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit December 12, 1997, Submitted ; February 9, 1998,
More informationSubject: SOLICITATION OF BIDS, PROPOSALS AND THE AWARD OF PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS OUTDATED
Policy 4-5 Rev. 7 Date: March 5, 2002 Back to Index Subject: SOLICITATION OF BIDS, PROPOSALS AND THE AWARD OF PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS I. II. III. IV. PURPOSE To establish procedures for the solicitation
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 23, 2019 Elisabeth A.
More informationUS Bank NA v. Maury Rosenberg
2018 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-31-2018 US Bank NA v. Maury Rosenberg Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2018
More informationChristopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr.
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-20-2010 Christopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4844
More informationMOTION OF RLI INSURANCE COMPANY TO LIFT THE AUTOMATIC STAY TO CANCEL SURETY BONDS THAT ARE FINANCIAL ACCOMMODATIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: ) Chapter 11 Case No. REPUBLIC AIRWAYS HOLDINGS, INC. ) et al., ) 16-10429 (SHL) ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered ) MOTION
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1708 GLADYS GARDNER, Individually on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. Plaintiff Appellant, ALLY FINANCIAL INCORPORATED,
More information2 each $ Total Bidder to specify Make/Model/Year of Mower (Z-Turn) 1 each $ Total Bidder to specify Make/Model/Year of Mower (1600 Turbo)
INVITATION TO BID CITY OF CHEYENNE, WYOMING PURCHASING DIVISION ROOM 307 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 2101 O NEIL AVENUE, CHEYENNE, WY82001 PHONE: (307) 637-6345 (This is not an order) BID OPENING DATA BID NUMBER:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. v. Case No: 6:15-cv-1824-Orl-41GJK ORDER
Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Caring First, Inc. et al Doc. 107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More information1 of 1 DOCUMENT. CLIPPER PIPE & SERVICE, INC., Appellee v. THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.; CONTRACTING SYSTEMS, INC. II, Appellant. No.
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CLIPPER PIPE & SERVICE, INC., Appellee v. THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.; CONTRACTING SYSTEMS, INC. II, Appellant No. 59 EAP 2014 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2015 Pa. LEXIS 1275
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, : : Plaintiff : : v. : : ISGN FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC, : No. 3:16-cv-01687 : Defendant. : RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
More informationCONTRACT LAW IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CONTRACT LAW IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC Jennifer Corrin Care Senior Lecturer TC Beirne School of Law University of Queensland Cavendish Publishing Limited London Sydney CONTENTS Preface Table of Cases Table
More informationJeffrey Podesta v. John Hanzel
2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2017 Jeffrey Podesta v. John Hanzel Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017
More informationSusan S. Oosting, Michael Fox Orr and Charles W. Dorman of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman, & Goggin, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
KONE, INC., f/k/a MONTGOMERY KONE, INC., v. Appellant, ANGELA ROBINSON and HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE
More informationStrickland v. Arch Ins. Co.
Neutral As of: January 16, 2018 3:34 PM Z Strickland v. Arch Ins. Co. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit January 9, 2018, Decided No. 17-10610 Non-Argument Calendar Reporter 2018 U.S.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) Overstreet Electric Co., Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 51653, 51715 ) Under Contract Nos. DACA27-96-C-0068 ) DACA27-96-C-0084 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:
More information