TWENTY SIXTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
|
|
- Aldous Brooks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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? PRESENTED BY: Alec M. Taylor Krebs, Farley & Pelleteri, LLC 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 900 Jackson, Mississippi (601) Stephanie Geer Merchants Bonding Company 2100 Fleur Drive Des Moines, IA (515)
2 Hanover v. Atlantis Drywall & Framing, et al: Are Indemnity Claims Subject to Arbitration? PRESENTED BY: Alec M. Taylor Krebs, Farley & Pelleteri, LLC 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 900 Jackson, Mississippi (601) Stephanie Geer Merchants Bonding Company 2100 Fleur Drive Des Moines, IA (515) I. Introduction Most payment and performance bonds do not contain an arbitration provision. Instead, a surety s duty to arbitrate often arises from language in an underlying contract between an owner and a contractor or from a subcontract between the principal and the obligee. In these situations, the payment and performance bonds typically contain language incorporating by reference the contract between the obligee and the principal, which contains an arbitration provision. The First, Second, Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits and several district courts have found that a surety must arbitrate disputes related to a performance bond where the performance bond specifically incorporates by reference a contract containing an arbitration clause. 1 The Eighth Circuit is the only federal circuit to diverge from this view. 2 There have been numerous papers authored on the effect of these arbitration provisions on performance bond claims between 1 Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 992 F.2d 386, 388 (1st Cir. 1993); Exchange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Haskell Co., 742 F. 2d 274, 276 (6th Cir. 1984), United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. West Point Constr. Co., 837 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988); Compania Espanola de Petroleos v. Nereus Shipping, 527 F.2d 966, 973 (2d Cir.1975), overruled on other grounds by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1993); J.S. & H. Const. Co. v. Richmond County Hospital Authority, 473 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1973); Jewish Fed'n of Greater New Orleans v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., No , 2001 WL , at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2001); see Hoffman v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 734 F. Supp. 192 (D.N.J. 1990); Cianbro Corp. v. Empresa Nacional de Ingenieria, 697 F.Supp. 15 (D.Me.1988); O'Connor and Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 697 F. Supp. 563 (D. Mass. 1988). 2 Mandaree Public School Dist. #36, 503 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2007). AgGrow Oils, LLC v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 242 F.3d 777, 781 (8th Cir. 2001).
3 the surety, principal and/or obligee. This paper does not discuss these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the effect of these arbitration provisions on a surety s claim for indemnity, an issue that has not been before any courts until recently. In Hanover Ins. Co. v. Atlantis Drywall & Framing LLC, 579 Fed. Appx. 742 (11th Cir. Ala. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama s ruling denying the Indemnitors motion to compel arbitration of Hanover s indemnity claims against them. This paper discusses this decision and its potential effect on the surety industry. Facts of the Hanover/Atlantis In 2009, Atlantis Drywall & Framing, LLC ( Atlantis ) and The Hanover Insurance Company ( Hanover ) entered into a relationship where Hanover agreed to issue payment and performance bonds to Atlantis on various projects. Hanover was not willing to assume the sole risk that any failure or default by Atlantis might result in a loss to it, so at the inception of Hanover s relationship with Atlantis, Hanover required the Indemnitors to execute an Indemnity Agreement before it would issue any bonds. During the course of Atlantis relationship with Hanover, Atlantis and the Indemnitors executed two indemnity agreements, neither of which was married to a specific project. On April 27, 2009, Atlantis and several other indemnitors (Bay Meadows Consulting, LLC; Marilourdes Deyo; Laurence Lamphere; and Christin M. Lamphere) executed the Indemnity Agreement (Bay Meadows Consulting, LLC; Marilourdes Deyo; Laurence Lamphere; and Christin M. Lamphere are collectively referred to as the Indemnitors ). This Indemnity Agreement covered all future bonds that Hanover would issue to Atlantis. On or about May 19, 2011, the Indemnitors executed a nearly identical Indemnity Agreement with Hanover, the only difference being that where Mr. Deyo had signed previously, the words divorce pending were now written. The opening paragraph of the Indemnity Agreement states [t]he Hanover Insurance Company... has executed, or may in its discretion hereafter execute certain surety contracts, undertakings, and/or other instruments of guarantee of indemnity... for which the Indemnity Agreement applies. The Indemnitors expressly promised and agreed to perform the following obligations in favor of Hanover: 2. The Indemnitors shall exonerate, indemnify, and save harmless the Surety from and against every claim, demand, liability, cost, charge, suit, judgment and expense which the Surety may pay
4 or incur including, but not limited to, loss, interest, court costs and consultant and attorney fees: (a) (b) (c) (d) by having executed or procured the execution of the bonds; or in making an independent investigation of any claim, demand or suit; or in defending any suit, action, mediation, arbitration or any other proceeding to obtain release from liability whether the Surety, in its sole discretion, elects to employ its own attorney or permits or requires Indemnitors to defend the Surety; or in enforcing any of the covenants, terms and conditions of this Agreement. 3. Payment shall be made to the Surety by the Indemnitors as soon as liability exists or is asserted against the Surety, whether or not the Surety shall have made any payment therefor. Such payment to the Surety shall be: (a) if the amount asserted as a claim, demand or suit is an ascertainable or liquidated amount, the amount of the claim, demand or suit asserted against the bond or bonds by any claimant or obligee, plus the amount the Surety deems sufficient, in its sole discretion, to indemnify and hold harmless from and against any loss, cost, interest, and expense necessary to defend, investigate or adjust the claim, demand or suit; or (b) if the amount asserted as a claim, demand or suit is an unascertainable or unliquidated amount, the amount the Surety deems sufficient, in its sole discretion, to indemnify and hold it harmless from and against any loss, cost, interest, and expense necessary to defend, investigate or adjust the claim, demand or suit. The Surety shall have the right to hold such funds as collateral (without any obligation to earn interest on the collateral for the Indemnitors) until the Indemnitors serve evidence satisfactory to the Surety of its discharge from all bonds and all liability by reason thereof, and to use such funds or any part thereof, at any time, in payment or settlement of any judgment, claim, liability, loss, damage, fees, or any other expense. The Surety shall have the exclusive right to adjust, settle or compromise any claim, demand, suit, or any other proceeding arising out of any bond against the Surety and/or the Indemnitors, take whatever action it deems appropriate in response thereto, and its determination of whether to defend or settle the same shall be
5 binding and conclusive upon the Indemnitors. In the event of any payment or disbursement by the Surety, the Indemnitors agree to immediately reimburse the Surety for any and all payments and disbursements made (including, but not limited to, interest from the date of the Surety s payments at the maximum rate allowable) under the Surety s belief that liability for the payments existed or that payment was necessary or expedient, whether or not such liability, necessity or expediency existed. Vouchers or other evidence of payment by the Surety shall be conclusive evidence of the fact and amount of such liability, necessity or expediency existed. Vouchers or other evidence of payment by the Surety shall be conclusive evidence of the fact and amount of such liability, necessity or expediency and of the Indemnitors liability to the Surety therefor. 8. The Surety, or its designated agents, shall have full and free access to the Indemnitors books and records at any and all reasonable times until the liability of the Surety under any bond is completely terminated and the claims of the Surety against any Indemnitors are fully satisfied. The Indemnity Agreement does not incorporate the specific bonds issued to Atlantis by Hanover. The reasoning for this is simple. At the time of the execution of the Indemnity Agreement, no bonds had been issued by Hanover to Atlantis. On or around March 8, 2011, Atlantis entered into a subcontract with Brice Building Company, LLC ( Brice ) for work to be performed in Alabama on the University of Alabama North Bluff Residential Community Project (the Subcontract ). The Indemnitors were not parties to the Subcontract. At the request of Atlantis and in reliance on the Indemnity Agreement, on June 30, 2011, Hanover issued payment and performance bonds naming Atlantis as Principal and Brice as Obligee (the Bonds ). The Indemnitors were not parties to the Bonds. The Subcontract contained the following arbitration provision: Paragraph CC. The parties agree and acknowledge that this Subcontract and the subject matter hereof is substantially connected with and involved with interstate commerce. In the event of a dispute(s), claim(s) or other matter(s) in question of any kind whatsoever between the parties (i) arising out of or related or collateral to the provision and/or subject matter of this Subcontract or the breach thereof, or independent from the Subcontract or (ii) relating to any transaction or occurrence of any kind between the parties to this Subcontract or their officers,
6 directors, agents and/or employees, it is agreed that the parties in this Subcontract will attempt to resolve such dispute(s), claim(s), or other matters(s) in question amicably by informal discussions and negotiations within a seven (7) day period. Notwithstanding any conflicting or contrary provisions contained within the General Contract nor any provisions in this Subcontract that incorporates herein the terms and conditions of the General Contract by reference, all dispute(s), claim(s), and other matter(s) in question which cannot be settled by negotiation among the parties within such time shall at the election of, the Contractor (but not otherwise), be submitted by the parties to arbitration under the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association except as such rules may be modified or restricted by any provision of this Subcontract. The parties intend that the scope of this arbitration clause shall be construed as broadly as possible so as to include, but not be limited to, the enforceability of this arbitration provision, the arbitrability of a particular claim or dispute, as well as any claims of misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, or fraud among the parties whether occurring before or after the execution of this agreement. Notice of demand by Contractor for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other party or parties to this Subcontract and with the American Arbitration Association.... The Bonds incorporate the Subcontract by reference, which makes sense because the Bonds were issued after the Subcontract (and therefore could incorporate it by reference) and specifically referred to the Subcontract as the document the Bonds were incorporating by reference. Hanover incurred losses on the payment and performance bond, and as a result, filed suit against Atlantis and the Individual indemnitors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The Indemnitors filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by the District Court. 3 The District Court Opinion. The issue of whether or not the Individual Indemnitors could compel arbitration of Hanover s claims for indemnity was first briefed for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which denied the Indemnitors motion to compel. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order (the Opinion ), the District Court analyzed pertinent Alabama law in determining that 3 Atlantis also filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the Court, due to the broad scope of the arbitration provision in the Subcontract.
7 the Indemnity obligations of the Indemnitors were not subject to the arbitration provision contained in the Subcontract. The District Court determined that in order to compel arbitration, it must first find that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the issue, 4 because, as the United States Supreme Court held in a case originating from Alabama, a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to submit. 5 In the Opinion, the District Court explained the numerous ways that arbitration can be compelled. 6 The Court noted that no arbitration agreement was contained in the Indemnity Agreement and found that Hanover did not directly assent, either in writing or through its conduct, to arbitrate any dispute with the Lampheres. 7 The District Court then analyzed Alabama law regarding incorporation by reference, as this was the only viable method for compelling arbitration between the Indemnitors and Hanover. The District Court found that absent express language in the Indemnity Agreement, the Bonds and the Subcontract could still be incorporated into the Indemnity Agreement if it expressly refers to and sufficiently describes that document. 8 Applying Alabama law the language of the Indemnity Agreement to, the District Court held here, the Indemnity Agreement contains only general references to other contracts and bonds, with no description whatsoever. Therefore, it does not incorporate the Subcontract by reference or otherwise. 9 Despite the fact that the Indemnity Agreement did not explicitly incorporate into it any document by reference and did not expressly refer to and sufficiently describe the Subcontract or the Bonds, the District Court continued its analysis under Alabama law. The District Court analyzed whether or not the Subcontract, the Bonds, and the Indemnity Agreement should be read together as part of a single transaction, thus allowing incorporation by reference under Alabama law. 10 In determining whether or not the three documents could be viewed as a part of the same transaction, the District Court examined and applied factors that 4 The Opinion (Doc. 26), p. 3 (citing Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, ; Ex parte Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., 927 So. 2d 792, 798 (Ala. 2005)); see also Shores of Pan., Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75956, *10-11 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 29, 2008); Patriot Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dixon, 399 F. Supp 2d 1298, 1300 (S.D. Al. 2005); 5 Id. at 3 (quoting United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960)). 6 A written arbitration agreement signed by all parties exists, the parties assent to arbitration, or an arbitration agreement can be incorporated by reference into the contract between the parties. 7 Id. at 3-5 (the Lampheres are two of the five Indemnitors, other than Atlantis, who signed the Indemnity Agreement). 8 Id. at 5 (quoting Fid. & Deposit Co. v. Jefferson County Comm'n, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (N.D. Al 2010) 9 Id. at The Opinion, at 6.
8 allow the incorporation by reference of non-contemporaneously executed documents, if they can be viewed as a single transaction. 11 One such factor is the congruity of parties in the non-contemporaneously executed documents (the Indemnity Agreement, Bonds, and Subcontract). The District Court acknowledged that under Alabama law two or more instruments executed contemporaneously by the same parties in reference to the same subject matter constitute one contract. 12 Since the contracts at issue were created by four different parties (the Indemnitors, Hanover, Atlantis, and Brice), the District Court held that the different documents executed by different parties, even involving a central theme, could not be merged together. 13 However, even if these non-contemporaneously executed documents by four parties could be read together, the District Court acknowledged that they must be part of a single, continuous transaction. 14 The Court analyzed the facts before them, applying Alabama law, and found that the three contracts could not be read as part of a single transaction. 15 Lastly, the District Court recognized that a non-signatory s claims can be compelled to arbitration where those claims arise out of the agreement containing the arbitration clause. 16 The District Court found that Hanover s claims against the Indemnitors did not arise out of the agreement containing the arbitration clause because Hanover was not claiming a direct right or benefit under the Subcontract, but sought to enforce explicit terms of the Indemnity Agreement. 17 In its decision, the District Court analyzed at least five ways under Alabama law that a party can be compelled to arbitrate its claims against another party. Applying Alabama law to the facts before it, the District Court denied the Indemnitors motion to compel arbitration as none of the methods for incorporation by reference under Alabama law were applicable to the facts before the District Court. The Appeal of the District Court s Ruling The Indemnitors appealed the District Court s denial of its Motion to Compel. On appeal, the Indemnitors argued that the District court erred by 11 Id. 12 Id. (quoting Pacific Ents. Oil Co. (USA) v. Howell Petroleum Corp., 614 So. 2d 409 (Ala. 1993). 13 Id. at 6-7 (citing Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Clarke, 862 So. 2d 634, 639 (Ala. 2003). 14 Id. at 7 (quoting Smith v. Smith, 43 So. 3d 1249, 1254 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). 15 Id. at Id. at 8. (citing Ex parte Dyess, 709 So. 2d 447, (Ala. 1997). 17 Id.
9 failing to compel arbitration of all claims asserted by Hanover against the Indemnitors, and further erred by failing to dismiss the action (or at least stay judicial proceedings pending completion of arbitration). The Indemnitors argued that the District Court ignored or obfuscated well established jurisprudence on contract construction and enforcement of arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. According to the Indemnitors, a written agreement with a nexus to interstate commerce existed between Hanover and the Indemnitors to arbitrate claims: (a) arising out of or related to the provisions or subject matter of the Subcontract or a breach thereof; (b) collateral to the provisions or subject matter of the Subcontract or a breach thereof; (c) independent from the provisions or subject matter of the Subcontract or a breach thereof; or (d) related to any transaction or occurrence of any kind between Hanover and Indemnitors. 18 The Indemnitors argued that Hanover's indemnity claims related to, arose out of, were collateral to or were independent from the provisions or subject matter of the Subcontract or a breach thereof. Alternatively, the Indemnitors argued that the Indemnity Agreement and Hanover's claims in this action relate to a single transaction or occurrence between Hanover and Indemnitors. Thus, Hanover's efforts to avoid arbitration were futile because Hanover bound itself to the arbitration clause contained in the Subcontract through its own actions and the application of traditional principles of law, including traditional principles of contract law, contract construction, and arbitrability. As such, Hanover's claims against the Indemnitors were due to be arbitrated. While the Indemnitors arguments centered around the validity of the arbitration provision contained in the Subcontract, Hanover argued that this issue was a red herring. Hanover argued that before the validity of the arbitration provision in the Subcontract becomes relevant, the Indemnitors must prove that the Indemnity Agreement contains an arbitration provision or incorporates by reference the arbitration provision found in the Subcontract. Hanover argued that a simple reading of the Indemnity Agreement showed that it does not contain an arbitration provision or incorporate any other document by reference. Further, Hanover argued that the District Court correctly analyzed Alabama law and did not err in denying the Indemnitors Motion to Compel. The Eleventh Circuit Opinion On August 29, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion vacating the District Court s ruling and remanding the case to the District 18 This language was taken from the arbitration provision contained in the Subcontract.
10 Court with instructions to compel arbitration. In so deciding, the Court recognized that the Indemnitors were not signatories to the Brice/Atlantis Subcontract, which contained the arbitration provision that was incorporated into the payment and performance bonds. Since the Indemnitors weren t signatories, the Court examined the limited instances when non-signatories can be compelled to arbitration. First, the Court pointed out that the Indemnitors can compel arbitration if the Indemnity Agreement incorporated the Subcontract, in which case it must expressly refer to and sufficiently describe the document. 19 Alternatively, the Subcontract may be incorporated by reference if it is part of the same transaction, that is, if the bonds, Indemnification Agreement, and subcontract are all part of a single transaction. 20 The Court recognized that Generally, this involves documents signed by the same parties at or near the same time. 21 However, the Court noted that Alabama law has never held that the parties must be the same. Lastly, the Court found that a non-signatory can seek arbitration if (1) the non-signatory is a third-party beneficiary of the contract containing an arbitration provision, and (2) the non-signatory s claims are intertwined with and related to the contract. 22 In vacating the District Court s decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Indemnity Agreement, bonds, and subcontract should be viewed as a single transaction since they relate to the same subject matter. 23 In so deciding the Court stated the parties were aware that Hanover required the Indemnification Agreement before it would issue the bonds, and thus the issuance of the bonds depended on the indemnification. And Atlantis could not perform its work under the subcontract without the bonds. 24 The Court further found that the Indemnity Agreement refers to the bonds that Hanover may enter into, even though it does not specifically identify the bonds at issue, and even though the Indemnity Agreement is not limited to the Brice/Atlantis subcontract there is no dispute that the parties entered into the Indemnification Agreement with the Brice-Atlantis subcontract and the specific payment and performance bonds in mind. 25 Finally, the Court stated that the District Court's conclusion that the documents were not related because at any stage the parties could have contracted with someone else without destroying the contract misses the 19 Hanover Ins. Co. v. Atlantis Drywall & Framing LLC, 579 Fed. Appx. 742, 745 (11th Cir. Ala. 2014). 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. at Id. 24 Id. 25 Id.
11 point. 26 The parties were interconnected and the documents concerned the same subject matter. Thus, we cannot conclude that the Indemnification Agreement pertains to a different subject matter than the subcontract and bonds, and the district court erred when it declined to read the three documents as a single transaction. 27 Thus, the Court vacated the District Court s ruling and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to compel arbitration. Hanover v. Atlantis Potential Effect on the Surety Industry Subsequent to the issuance of the Eleventh Circuit s opinion, Hanover filed a petition for rehearing and the Surety and Fidelity Association of America filed an Amicus Brief in support of Hanover s petition. On October 29, 2014, the 11 th Circuit granted the petition for rehearing. 28 Should the ruling be upheld, the effect of Hanover v. Atlantis could be far reaching. Although this is an unpublished opinion, it gives Indemnitors ammunition to argue that indemnity matters must be arbitrated. Many cases will differ factually from Hanover v. Atlantis, especially in the number of bonds associated with an indemnity agreement and the wording of the applicable arbitration agreement. Practitioners must be prepared to distinguish the facts before them from those in Hanover v. Atlantis. Further, as many indemnity matters are currently decided summarily, and since it is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain summary judgment in arbitration, solvent indemnitors may seek to compel arbitration in an attempt to effectuate a more favorable settlement. Finally, as arbitration is generally more costly than litigation, a surety claims professional s analysis on whether to pursue an indemnity claim must be adjusted accordingly. Going forward, should this case gain traction in other venues, sureties should consider amending their indemnity agreements to account for this decision. A provision explicitly prohibiting indemnity claims from being arbitrated would give more assurance to the surety that indemnity claims would be adjudicated in court, a more favorable locale than arbitration. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Oral Arguments were originally scheduled for March 20, 2015, but the Court recently cancelled oral arguments and stated that the Court would rehear the arguments based solely on the briefs.
12 About the Authors Alec Taylor is an associate at Krebs, Farley & Pelleteri and resides in the firm s Jackson, Mississippi Office. Alec represents surety companies in connection with payment, performance, fiduciary and commercial bond disputes through the Southern United States. Alec is licensed to practice law in Mississippi and Alabama. He can be contacted at ataylor@kfplaw.com or (601) Stephanie Geer is a claims attorney at Merchants Bonding Company. She works out of the company s headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa. Stephanie received her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Iowa in 2005 and her Juris Doctor from the University of Iowa Law School in 2008.
UNITED 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 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 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 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 informationCase 1:06-cv RAE Document 38 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-00107-RAE Document 38 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CREDIT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION, an Ohio Corporation,
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationTWENTIETH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
TWENTIETH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE Clearwater, Florida st APRIL 30 & MAY 1, 2009 ARBITRATION AND THE MILLER ACT SURETY PRESENTED BY: DAVID J. KREBS, ESQ. MARC L. DOMRES, ESQ.
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 informationAvalon Risk Management, Inc. General Agents U.S. Customs Bond Application & Indemnity
Avalon Risk Management, Inc. General Agents U.S. Customs Bond Application & Indemnity Return Completed Application to: EgeTrans USA, Inc. Contact Person 729 N. Route 83, Suite 304 Sandra Pattison Bensenville,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60083 Document: 00513290279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NEW ORLEANS GLASS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationIBEW LOCAL 701 CONTRACTOR S WAGE AND FRINGE BENEFIT BOND
IBEW LOCAL 701 CONTRACTOR S WAGE AND FRINGE BENEFIT BOND AGREEMENT dated this day of, 20, hereinafter called the agreement, by and between IBEW Local 701, being organized and existing under the laws of
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 informationINDEMNITOR APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT
BAIL PRODUCER: [stamp must include name, address phone no., email and license no.] AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles CA 90017 phone: main 800 680
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 informationRESOLVING THE DISPUTE: THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRINGS SIDE AGREEMENTS INTO SCOPE IN THE CONFLICTS OVER ARBITRATION IN INLANDBOATMENS UNION V.
RESOLVING THE DISPUTE: THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRINGS SIDE AGREEMENTS INTO SCOPE IN THE CONFLICTS OVER ARBITRATION IN INLANDBOATMENS UNION V. DUTRA GROUP INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 301 of the Labor Management
More informationTHE SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. 80 MAIN STREET, SUITE 330, WEST ORANGE, NJ INDEMNITY AGREEMENT READ CAREFULLY
THE SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. 80 MAIN STREET, SUITE 330, WEST ORANGE, NJ 07052 INDEMNITY AGREEMENT READ CAREFULLY We, the Indemnitor(s), together with the Principal(s) named below (individually and
More informationPurchase Agreement TERMS AND CONDITIONS PRICES PAYMENT AND PAYMENT TERMS. Bright Ideas. Better Solutions. Benchmark is Branch Automation.
Purchase Agreement The following terms and conditions shall apply to the sale of goods or products ( goods or products ) associated with your invoice: TERMS AND CONDITIONS The obligations and rights of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:08/21/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationINDEMNITOR APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT
INDEMNITOR APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT You, the undersigned indemnitor ( Indemnitor or you ), hereby represent and warrant that the following declarations made and answers given are true, complete and correct
More informationEXHIBIT F-1 (I) FORM OF DESIGN-BUILD LETTER OF CREDIT VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VA ATTN: [ ]
EXHIBIT F-1 (I) FORM OF DESIGN-BUILD LETTER OF CREDIT IRREVOCABLE STANDBY DESIGN-BUILD LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUER PLACE FOR PRESENTATION OF DRAFT APPLICANT BENEFICIARY [ ] [Name and address of banking institution
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 informationCase 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331
Case 6:14-cv-01400-CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS
More informationCase grs Doc 32 Filed 10/14/15 Entered 10/14/15 14:08:19 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10
Document Page 1 of 10 IN RE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LONDON DIVISION ESTON ARTHUR ELDRIDGE CASE NO. 15-60312 DEBTOR UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY V. ESTON ARTHUR ELDRIDGE
More informationGIA # Execution Date:
GIA # Execution Date: INDEMNITY AGREEMENT This Indemnity Agreement ( Agreement ) is made as of the Execution Date set forth above by Indemnitors for the purpose of indemnifying Surety in connection with
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION. Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HSC Holdings. v. Hughes et al Doc. 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION HSC HOLDINGS; fka GE&F CO, LTD, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6-12-18 CARY E. HUGHES, et
More informationCase 1:07-cv RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-00146-RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:06/05/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationMotion Date: 12/03/04
C-J I SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. JOSEPH COVELLO Justice UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY Plaintiff -against- ARAGONA ENTERPRISES, INC. ARAGONA BROTHERS
More informationCOMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Compromise and Settlement Agreement ( Settlement Agreement ) is made and entered into between Reorganized Adelphia Communications Corporation ( ACC ) and its affiliated
More informationGUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION
EXHIBIT C-1 GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION This GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION ( Guaranty ) is made as of, 200, by FLUOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the Guarantor ), to the VIRGINIA
More informationIndemCo Surety Bonds for the Energy Industry
IndemCo Surety Bonds for the Energy Industry IndemCo 777 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77056 main 713 355 3100 No. COLLATERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT Principal(s): (Name(s) as it appear(s)
More informationArbitration vs. Litigation
Arbitration vs. Litigation Prepared and Presented by: Steve Williams CHAPTER X ARBITRATION vs. LITIGATION Most owners and contractors want to build jobs, not argue about them. But, as most owners and contractors
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 informationSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ENERGY SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICE AGREEMENT
Agreement Number: This Energy Service Provider Service Agreement (this Agreement ) is made and entered into as of this day of,, by and between ( ESP ), a organized and existing under the laws of the state
More informationTHIS INDEPENDENT ENGINEER'S AGREEMENT (this Independent Engineer's Agreement) is made on [ ]
THIS INDEPENDENT ENGINEER'S AGREEMENT (this Independent Engineer's Agreement) is made on [ ] AMONG (1) REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD); (2) DENVER TRANSIT PARTNERS, LLC, a limited liability company
More informationM. Stephen Turner, P.A., and J. Nels Bjorkquist, of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA TWIN OAKS AT SOUTHWOOD, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
More informationAGREEMENT WITH BUILDER. NAME or COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS:
Rev. 04/15 AGREEMENT WITH BUILDER THIS AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN: ATLANTIC HOME WARRANTY ( AHW ), a body corporate, carrying on business in the Atlantic Provinces and NAME or COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS: POSTAL
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, HOLLOWAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 25, 2012 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More informationCase 1:16-cv ARR-RLM Document 34 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 438
Case 116-cv-01185-ARR-RLM Document 34 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID # 438 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationICB System Standard Terms and Conditions
ICB System Standard Terms and Conditions Effective: February 12, 2007 U.S. Customs and Border Protection requires that international carriers, including participants in the Automated Manifest System (as
More informationDeed of Guarantee and Indemnity
Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity To: Shenwan Hongyuan Securities (H.K. Limited Shenwan Hongyuan Futures (H.K. Limited 1. In consideration of your granting and/or continuing to make available advances, credit
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DICUS ON RESPONDENT S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Hackney Group and ) Credit General Insurance Company ) ASBCA No. 51453 ) Under Contract No. N62472-96-C-3237 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES
More informationWhat 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Snyder v. CACH, LLC Doc. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MARIA SNYDER, vs. Plaintiff, CACH, LLC; MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP; DAVID N. MATSUMIYA; TREVOR OZAWA, Defendants.
More informationThe following papers were read on Plaintiff s motion for summary judgment or alternatively to strike Defendants answer:
INDEX NO. 19576/01 ' SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS TERM PART 23 NASSAU COUNTY PRESENT: HONORABLE LEONARD B. AUSTIN Justice Motion R/D: g-16-03 Submission Date: I O-17-03 Motion Sequence No.: 003/MOT
More informationIntroduction. The Nature of the Dispute
Featured Article Expanding the Reach of Arbitration Agreements: A Pennsylvania Federal Court Opinion Applies Principles of Agency and Contract Law to Require a Subsidiary-Reinsurer to Arbitrate Under Parent
More informationCLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM
CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM Claim Number : A10005-0004 Claimant : O'Briens Response Management OOPS Type of Claimant : OSRO Type of Claim : Removal Costs Claim Manager : Amount Requested : $242,366.26
More informationCase: 5:10-cv SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:10-cv-02691-SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HUGUES GREGO, et al., CASE NO. 5:10CV2691 PLAINTIFFS, JUDGE
More informationSureQuick Express Bond Application
SureQuick Express Bond Application General Information Contractor Company Name Business Phone No. ( ) Mobile ( ) Home ( ) E-mail address Type of work done? Operates as Proprietorship Partnership Corporation
More informationCase 1:18-cv CMA Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:18-cv-20859-CMA Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 1 of 6 CAPORICCI U.S.A. CORP., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiff, PRADA S.p.A., et al., Defendants.
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 11/04/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationCUSTODIAL AGREEMENT. by and among CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE. as Seller, Servicer and Cash Manager. and
Execution Copy CUSTODIAL AGREEMENT by and among CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE as Seller, Servicer and Cash Manager and CIBC COVERED BOND (LEGISLATIVE) GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP as Guarantor and
More informationCase 1:10-cv UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2010 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:10-cv-20296-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2010 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SIVKUMAR SIVANANDI, Case No. 10-20296-CIV-UNGARO v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:16-cv SDW-LDW Document 5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 22
Case 2:16-cv-05243-SDW-LDW Document 5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 22 COLE SCHOTZ P.C. Court Plaza North 25 Main Street P.O. Box 800 Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-0800 201-489-3000 201-489-1536 Facsimile
More informationThe Supreme Court will shortly be considering
Arbitration at a Cross Road: Will the Supreme Court Hold the Federal Arbitration Act Trumps Federal Labor Laws? By John Jay Range and Bryan Cleveland The Supreme Court will shortly be considering three
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 informationAGREEMENT OF TRUST RECITALS
AGREEMENT OF TRUST THIS AGREEMENT OF TRUST (the Agreement ) is made as of December 7, 2016, by and among Ascensus Investment Advisors, LLC (the Administrator ), Ascensus College Savings Recordkeeping Services,
More informationRe: JES Commercial, Inc. v. The Hanover Insurance Company Roanoke City Case No. CL16-108
TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA WILLIAM D. BROADHURST, JUDGE ROANOKE C ITY COURTHOUSE 315 C H URCH AVENUE. S.W. P.O. BOX 211 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24002-02ll (540) 853-2051 FAX (540) 853-1040 COMMONWEALTH
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:15-cv-01180-D Document 25 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ASHLEY SLATTEN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-15-1180-D
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MEDIATOR INFORMATION: Telephone: 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No: RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Date: Time: :0 a.m. Case Assigned to Dept. This Release
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
CASE 0:17-cv-05009-JRT-FLN Document 123 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT REGISTRY, INC., v. Plaintiff, A.W. COMPANIES, INC., ALLAN K. BROWN, WENDY
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------
More informationLAND TRUST AGREEMENT
R E I C L U B P R O F O R M S & D O C U M E N T S A M P L E Page 1 of 9 LAND TRUST AGREEMENT Trust Agreement made this day of, 20., Grantor(s)/Settlor(s) and Beneficiaries, (hereinafter collectively referred
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 informationAgreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions
Agreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions In consideration of United Overseas Bank Limited (the Bank ) agreeing at the Applicant s request to issue the Banker s Guarantee, the Applicant
More informationCase 1:17-cv NT Document 17 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-00422-NT Document 17 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE EMMA CEDER, V. Plaintiff, SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant. Docket
More informationJournal of Dispute Resolution
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1994 Issue 1 Article 11 1994 Consolidation of Separate Arbitration Proceedings: Liberal Construction versus Contractarian Approaches - United Kingdom of Great Britain
More informationBuckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna*
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna* I. INTRODUCTION In a decision that lends further credence to the old adage that consumers should always beware of the small print, the United
More informationG.G. et al v. Valve Corporation Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
G.G. et al v. Valve Corporation Doc. 0 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 G.G., A.L., and B.S., individually and on behalf of all
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
Case 7:03-cv-00102-D Document 858 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 23956 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION VICTORIA KLEIN, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationELY BAIL BONDS INSTRUCTIONS IMPORTANT! MAKE SURE YOU SIGN ALL FORMS
ELY BAIL BONDS INSTRUCTIONS 1. Fill out INDEMINTOR APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT. 2. lndemnitor(s) must initial bottom of all four pages. Sign bottom of page 2 of 4. 3. Indemintor(s) must sign NEVADA ADDENDUM
More informationCase 1:08-cv WS-B Document 14 Filed 12/10/2008 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:08-cv-00413-WS-B Document 14 Filed 12/10/2008 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION THE MOBILE WASHINGTON (MOWA) ) BAND OF THE CHOCTAW
More informationCase 3:16-cv JCH Document 20 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:16-cv-01944-JCH Document 20 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES INC., : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 3:16-CV-1944 (JCH) v. : :
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:02/07/2014 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationDEED OF TRUST W I T N E S S E T H:
DEED OF TRUST THIS DEED OF TRUST ( this Deed of Trust ), made this day of, 20, by and between, whose address is (individually, collectively, jointly, and severally, Grantor ), and George Stanton, who resides
More informationAGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST
AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST THIS AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST Is made and entered into this day of, 20, by and between, as Grantors and Beneficiaries, (hereinafter referred to as the "Beneficiaries",
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 informationTUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA ARBITRATION CODE GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA ARBITRATION CODE GENERAL PROVISIONS This Code may be cited as the Tunica-Biloxi Arbitration Code. SECTION 2 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 2.1 The Tunica-Biloxi
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION
Case 2:15-cv-01798-JCW Document 62 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CANDIES SHIPBUILDERS, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-1798 WESTPORT INS. CORP. MAGISTRATE
More informationNO CV. IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * * NO.
Opinion issued December 10, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-00769-CV IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * *
More informationCase 2:16-cv JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION
Case 2:16-cv-05042-JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANLOGIC SCOUT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., v. Petitioners, CIVIL
More informationPROPOSAL SUBMISSION AGREEMENT
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AGREEMENT THIS PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AGREEMENT (this Agreement ) is made and entered into effective on, 2014 (the Effective Date ), by, a ( Bidder ), in favor of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII
WDCD, LLC v. istar, Inc. Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII WDCD, LLC, A HAWAII LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, vs. Plaintiff, istar, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, Defendant. CIV. NO. 17-00301
More informationKoons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach*
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach* I. INTRODUCTION In Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach, Maryland's highest court was asked to use the tools of statutory interpretation
More informationOCTOBER TERM, Ocean Reef Developers II, LLC. Michael L. Maddox Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court (CV )
REL: 05/18/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationChapter 9 Third-Party Practice
Chapter 9 Third-Party Practice by Robert S. Fischler and Harvey J. Wolkoff* I. INTRODUCTION 9:1 Scope note II. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS 9:2 Objectives of third-party actions 9:3 General advantages of impleader
More informationCase 3:16-cv DPJ-FKB Document 31 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 3:16-cv-00596-DPJ-FKB Document 31 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ARCHIE & ANGELA HUDSON, on behalf of themselves and all
More informationQUOTE DOCUMENTS FOR CALLANAN GYM FLOOR REPLACEMENT center Street. Des Moines, Iowa QUOTE # Q7088
QUOTE DOCUMENTS FOR CALLANAN GYM FLOOR REPLACEMENT 3010 center Street Des Moines, Iowa 50312 QUOTE # Q7088 Owner Des Moines Independent Community School District 1917 Dean Avenue Des Moines, IA 50316 DES
More informationColonial Surety Company 123 Tice Blvd Suite 250 Woodcliff Lake, NJ (800) Fax (877) LOST INSTRUMENT APPLICATION
Colonial Surety Company 123 Tice Blvd Suite 250 Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07011 (800) 221-3662 Fax (877) 269-1531 LOST INSTRUMENT APPLICATION Application Information Applicant s Name: Name to Appear on Bond,
More informationBAIL BOND APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT - DEFENDANT
BAIL PRODUCER: [stamp must include name, address phone no., Email and license no.] AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles CA 90017 phone: main 800 680
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the Court is Twin City Fire Insurance Company s ( Twin City ) Motion for
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRADEN PARTNERS, LP, et al., v. Plaintiffs, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
More informationPLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT 1
PLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT 1 In The Case Of Kevin Burkhammer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Allied Interstate LLC; and, Does 1-20, Inclusive, 15CV0567 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
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 informationJoplin Area Chamber of Commerce. Foundation By-Laws
Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce Foundation By-Laws Last adopted: June 2004 September 2000 ARTICLE I OFFICES The principal office of the Corporation in the State of Missouri shall be located in the City
More informationSunCam Course Author Agreement
SunCam Course Author Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of, 20 ( Effective Date ) by and between; SunCam, Inc a Florida corporation whose address is: 3111 Hartridge Ter Wellington, Florida 33414-3431
More information