TWENTIETH ANNUAL SOUTHERN SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS
|
|
- Adrian Ray
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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. KREBS, FARLEY & PELLETERI, PLLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA
2 ARBITRATION AND THE MILLER ACT SURETY by David J. Krebs and Marc L. Domres The Miller Act provides a right of action for every person, wi e requisite contractual relationship, at has furnished labor or material on a federal works project at has not been paid in full wiin 90 days after e day on which at person last provided work on at project. Congress created e Miller Act because federal property is not subject to a state s mechanics lien laws, and erefore e Act was needed to protect persons who supply labor and materials for e construction 1 of federal buildings. The Miller Act provides for exclusive jurisdiction in federal 2 court. Proper venue is in e federal district court where e work was performed. The Miller Act states, in pertinent part: (3) Venue - A civil action brought under is subsection must be brought - (A) in e name of e United States for e use of e person bringing e action; and (B) in e United States District Court for any district. 3 The Federal Arbitration Act, on e oer hand, provides: If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of e courts of e United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, e court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied at e issue involved in such suit or proceedings is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of e parties stay e trial of e action until such arbitration has been held in accordance wi e terms of e agreement... 4 At least one court has held at in light of e exclusive jurisdiction granted by e Miller Act for claims against a surety, a federal Miller Act should not be stayed pending arbitration despite such a stay being provided for under e Federal 1 See United States ex rel. B&D Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 70 F.3d 1115, 1117 (10 Cir. 1995) See F.D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116 (1974). 40 U.S.C. 3133(b)(3)(B). 9 U.S.C. 3.
3 5 Arbitration Act. However, e tension between e exclusive jurisdiction provided under e Miller Act and e requirement of a stay under e Federal Arbitration Act has been resolved in numerous oer Miller Act cases, finding a stay appropriate. 6 What remains unresolved, and e concern of is paper, is e preclusive effect of an arbitration between a subcontractor/supplier and a contractor on a Miller Act surety. At is point, federal law is unclear as to wheer and in what circumstances a Miller Act surety may be liable for an arbitration award against its contractor. This lack of clarity creates greater risk for e surety in issuing Miller Act bonds. In light of e federal policy favoring arbitration, courts seem increasingly willing to forego Congress mandate in e Miller Act at federal courts be given exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. This willingness increases e potential liability of sureties, as an arbitrator s award is difficult to reverse absent fraud, 7 corruption or undue means. An arbitrator can also ignore jurisprudential limitations on e extent of a surety s liability under e Miller Act, including awarding state law penalties for failing to make prompt payment, interest, and attorney s fees, which furer increases e risk of e surety. Additionally, time limitations provided by e Miller Act may not be strictly enforced. Considering e limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award, such vacillations of well settled Miller Act jurisprudence may be enforceable against e surety pursuant to an arbitration award. Such a result is in conflict wi e protection granted sureties under e Miller Act. I. The Hendry Decision and its Progeny. There is a split among e circuits as to e preclusive effect of an arbitration against a Miller Act surety. However, despite is split, e terms of e Miller Act are clear and should be enforced. The Miller Act expressly provides at suits against a surety are restricted to e United States District Court for any district in 8 which e contract was to be performed and executed. Permitting e enforcement of an arbitration award against a surety would be in contravention of e Miller Act 5 United States of America for e use and benefit of Pensacola Construction Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 705 F.Supp. 306, 313 (W.D.La. 1989). 6 U.S. ex rel. Newton v. Neumann Caribbean Intern., Ltd. 750 F.2d 1422 (9 Cir. 1985); U.S. ex rel. Portland Const. Co. v. Weiss Pollution Control Corp., 532 F.2d 1009 (1976); J.S. & H. Const. Co. v. Richmond County Hosp. Auority, 473 F.2d 212 (5 Cir. 1973); Warren Bros. Co. v. Cardi Corp., st 471 F.2d 1304 (1 Cir. 1973); U.S. ex rel. Capolino Sons, Inc. v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., 364 nd F.2d 705 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 385 U.S. 924 (1966) U.S.C U.S.C.A. 3133(b)(3)(B).
4 and renders is venue provision, expressly provided for by Congress, meaningless. As such, certain federal courts have found no preclusive effect of an underlying arbitration or, similarly, state court ruling on a Miller Act surety. In United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Hendry Corp., 391 F.2d 13 (5 Cir. 1968), e cornerstone case concerning e exclusivity of federal jurisdiction over Miller Act sureties, a subcontractor attempted to enforce a state court ruling against a Miller Act surety. The Fif Circuit stated at: This principle is inapposite when e plaintiff s recovery depends upon a Miller Act bond... If a Miller Act surety is bound by a state court judgment recognizing a supplier s claim against e principal - it is mere word-juggling to say at e suit in state court is not a suit under e Miller Act. The assumption at e Act permits such suits attributes to Congress an obtuseness sufficient to destroy e statutory scheme... In short, e surety is entitled to stand on e congressional decision at e United States district court independently determine e facts and e extent of a surety s liability under a Miller Act bond. 9 Similarly, to permit e enforcement of an arbitration award against a surety would also necessarily destroy e congressional protection provided a surety under e Miller Act. When e party being vouched into warranty is a Miller Act surety... ere is an important federal interest at stake. The jurisdiction and venue requirements of e Miller Act were established in order to protect e surety from e inconsistent results of a multiplicity of lawsuits in different jurisdictions. If e surety were forced to defend his bond in every arbitration proceeding at his indemnitee might be involved in, he would lose e protection at Congress granted e Miller Act surety. The surety would face e possibility of inconsistent results in e different forums and might end up being made liable for more an e amount of e bond. 10 These courts view e mandate of exclusive jurisdiction, given in e Miller Act to sureties, as a statutory right at cannot be overridden merely because of e federal policy favoring arbitration. 9 Id. at United States of America for e use and benefit of Pensacola Construction Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 705 F.Supp. 306, 313 (W.D.La. 1989).
5 Furermore, despite certain courts viewing e claimant s contract as being incorporated in e Miller Act payment bond, a Miller Act payment bond only makes reference to e prime contract, not e contracts of subcontractors or suppliers, let alone ose subcontract s arbitration provisions. Thus, as arbitration is a matter of consent, and as e bond does not incorporate a subcontract s arbitration provision, 11 e surety has not waived its Miller Act right to federal jurisdiction. Thus, under e Hendry construct, a claimant may avail itself of its Miller Act remedy against a surety only by way of a Miller Act suit in federal court. 12 II. The Aurora and Kirchdorfer Decisions. The United States Six and Nin Circuits, on e oer hand, have enforced 13 arbitration awards against Miller Act sureties. Like in Hendry, e Nin Circuit decision in Aurora did not directly involve arbitration, but e enforcement of a state court ruling, albeit one confirming an arbitration award. The Aurora Court, despite recognizing e exclusive federal jurisdiction granted a surety by e Miller Act, held at e Miller Act, by its terms, does not create an exception to e full fai and credit statute, and us e confirmation of e arbitration award by e Alaska state court was enforceable against e Miller Act surety. Considering e express language of e Miller Act providing jurisdiction solely in e federal courts, it is unclear how e Nin Circuit determined at no exception existed to e full fai and credit statute. Under is reasoning, federal questions can be determined by state courts even when Congress mandates ey be heard in federal courts. Despite e Nin Circuit s apparent reliance on e full fai and credit statute in Aurora, e decision itself evidences an uncomfortableness wi using e full fai and credit statute as e sole basis for its decision. As such, e Nin Circuit distinguishes its holding from e holding in Hendry by stating at e surety in 14 Aurora may also be bound by res judicata principles. 11 United States ex rel. Capital Electric Constr. Co., Inc. v. Pool and Canfield, Inc., 778 F.Supp. 1088, (W.D. Mo. 1991). 12 See also United States ex rel. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Brandt Constr. Co., 826 F.2d 643, 645 (7 Cir. 1987); United States ex rel. Portland Constr. Co. v. Weiss Pollution Control Corp., 532 F.2d 1009, 1012 (5 Cir. 1976). 13 See United States ex. rel. Skip Kirchdorfer v. M.J. Kelley Corp., 955 F.2d 656 (6 Cir. 1993); see also United States ex. rel. Aurora Painting, Inc. v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co., 932 F.2d 1150 (9 Cir. 1987). 14 Aurora, 932 F.2d at 1153.
6 The Aurora Court contends at as e surety, a privy of e principal, was provided an opportunity to arbitrate e dispute and refused, e surety was erefore bound to e arbitration award and subsequent state court confirmation of at award. Alough it appears at e surety attempted to preserve its rights and defenses under e Miller Act prior to arbitration, e surety in Aurora did tender its defense to e principal, as well as use e same counsel as principal. The Kirchdorfer decision does not discuss e exclusive federal jurisdiction granted by e Miller Act at all. It is unclear from e decision wheer e individual sureties even raised e issue or were aware of e exclusive jurisdiction provided by e Act. The sureties in Kirchdorfer were two individuals, one of whom was a corporate officer of e corporate contractor. Alough aware of e arbitration, it appears neier e insolvent contractor nor e sureties appeared at e arbitration, instead, informing e arbitrator at e contractor has no funds and, us, cannot pay for e transportation of witnesses or attorneys, or attorneys fees. Alough e Kirchdorfer Court cites to e Aurora decision, e Kirchdorfer holding appears based on e general rule enunciated in Frederick v. United States at a judgment against a principal conclusively establishes e liability of a surety, 15 as long as e surety had notice of e proceedings against e principal. The Kirchdorfer Court also cites to similar state law in reaching its holding. Thus, despite e congressional mandate granting exclusive federal jurisdiction to a suit against a Miller Act surety, e Aurora and Kirchdorfer decisions, which have formed e basis for any claimant s attempts to enforce an arbitration award against a Miller Act surety, ignore, in reaching eir decisions, e purpose effectuated by e grant of exclusive jurisdiction. Exclusive jurisdiction ensures consistent results and protection, not only of e surety, but also claimants in ose instances where e claimed amounts exceed e amount of e bond. Under e Heard Act, e precursor to e Miller Act, to effectuate is protection, e surety was not only entitled to federal jurisdiction, but all claims against e bond were to be brought in one suit to protect e surety. The Miller Act, concerned about e due process of claimants, created individual actions for claimants, but still required at e suits be brought in federal court wi venue in e district where e work was performed. The Aurora and Kirchdorfer decisions have eviscerated at protection, and have done so wiout an analysis of e congressional purpose in enacting e Miller Act F.2d 481, 485 n.6 (5 Cir. 1967).
7 III. Full Notice and Opportunity In United States ex. rel. Frontier Construction, Inc. v. Tri-State Management Co., 262 F.Supp.2d 893 (N.D. Ill. 2003), e district court engaged in a lengy discussion of e preclusive effect of an arbitration against a Miller Act surety, where e principal failed to appear at e arbitration. Alough admitting at federal law is far from clear as to wheer and in what circumstances a Miller Act surety may be liable for an arbitration award against its principal, e Frontier court held at where e principal fails to appear for e arbitration and e surety is provided only initial notice at arbitration proceedings were going to occur, at e surety could be bound neier under e Hendry/Pensacola Construction or Kirchdorfer/Aurora 16 Painting rules. The Frontier court explained at under e Hendry/Pensacola Construction rule a surety cannot be bound under e Miller Act to an arbitration award, and under e Kirchdorfer/Aurora Painting rule a surety is not liable where it did not have an opportunity to defend itself. 17 In reaching is decision, e Frontier Court cited to e Eleven Circuit holding in Drill Sou, Inc. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 234 F.3d 1232 (11 Cir. 2001) at a surety is bound by any judgment against its principal... when e surety had full knowledge of e action against e principal and an opportunity to defend it. The Drill Sou decision did not concern e confirmation of an arbitration award, but raer a default against a surety s principal where e surety despite numerous opportunities to defend e principal failed to do so, rendering e default judgment preclusive as to e surety s liability. Just as in Frontier, oer courts have followed e Drill Sou general rule in holding at a surety would be bound to an arbitration between its principal and a claimant if provided full knowledge of e arbitration and an opportunity to defend. 18 However, is standard raises a myriad of new issues in defining what constitutes full knowledge and an opportunity to defend. Does notice of an arbitration demand constitute full knowledge? Or does e claimant need to keep e surety abreast of all goings on in e arbitration? If e principal fails to appear in e arbitration, does e claimant have a greater obligation to keep e surety informed? 16 Id. at Id. (It should also be noted at Frontier s reading of Aurora may not be entirely accurate. It appears at under Aurora e claimant merely needed to seek enforcement of e arbitration award against e principal in state court, and en necessarily under e full fai and credit statute, e decision would have been binding on e surety). 2004). 18 U.S. ex. rel. MPA Construction, Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 394 F.Supp. 2d 934 (D.Md.
8 Conclusion It is not uncommon for an insolvent federal contractor to fail to pay multiple claims. Under many federal subcontracts, at failure would be subject to arbitration. The Miller Act, alough providing individual actions to claimants, was not enacted to divest e Miller Act surety of its right to have ese claims adjudicated in federal court, and specifically in e district court where e work occurred. By enforcing arbitration agreements against Miller Act sureties, e federal courts risk doing just at. In doing so, e courts risk e protection afforded ose who supply and perform labor on federal projects. Multiple arbitration awards against an absent principal may be enforced against e surety wiout any trial on e merits of ese claims. Furermore, state law claims for failing to make prompt payments, interest and attorney s fees may be granted by e arbitrator, despite e questionable attributes of such claims against 19 a Miller Act surety. Faced wi ese de facto defaults for questionable claims, real risk exists at e penal sum of e bond may be expended on merit less claims, while proper claimants are subsequently excluded from recovery. Despite federal policy favoring arbitration, e Miller Act s grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction should be enforced. Absent at enforcement, e Supreme Court needs to reconcile e split decisions of e Courts of Appeal, providing e Miller Act surety a clear roadmap of when, and under what circumstances, it will be bound to an arbitrator s award against its federal contractor. (1974). 19 F.D. Rich Co., Inc. v. U.S. for e Use and Benefit of Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116
United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-00363-MHS-DDB Document 16 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 441 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RA INVESTMENT I, LLC, ET AL. vs. Case No. 4:05CV363
More informationCase: 3:14-cv slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8
Case: 3:14-cv-00734-slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WOODMAN S FOOD MARKET, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE CLOROX COMPANY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
Lane, et al v. Capital Acquisitions, et al Doc. 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-60602-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON RICHARD LANE and FAITH LANE, v. Plaintiffs, CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS
More informationAn Essential Brick and Its Chip: A Refresher on Payment Bond Claims Under the Miller Act and the "Little Miller Act"
An Essential Brick and Its Chip: A Refresher on Payment Bond Claims Under the Miller Act and the "Little Miller Act" Written By Jason T. Strickland (jtstrickland@wardandsmith.com) May 24, 2011 Introduction
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
McPhail v. LYFT, INC. Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JENNIFER MCPHAIL A-14-CA-829-LY LYFT, INC. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO: 8:12-cv-251-T-26TGW O R D E R
Case 8:12-cv-00251-RAL-TGW Document 26 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 203 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LUCIANA DE OLIVEIRA, on behalf of herself and ose similarly
More informationCase 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 29 Filed 02/18/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-VAP-JCR Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 LESTER J. MARSTON - California State Bar No. 000 E-mail: marston@pacbell.net RAPPORT AND MARSTON 0 West Perkins Street P.O. Box Ukiah, CA Telephone:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION MEMORANDUM RULING
Case 6:09-cv-01438-RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 6865 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION Comar Marine Corp. versus Raider Marine
More informationCase 6:09-cv GFVT Document 19 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Case 6:09-cv-00200-GFVT Document 19 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON Defendant. Civil No. 09-200-GFVT ORDER *** *** *** ***
More informationCase 4:05-cv HFB Document 18 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-04050-HFB Document 18 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION WESLEY MEREDITH, JR., Individually and as class representative
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
THE HONORABLE KAREN A. OVERSTREET Chapter UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 In Re: COURT REPORTING INSTITUTE, INC., Debtor. BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF COURT REPORTING
More informationCase 2:04-cv LRS Document 357 Filed 06/19/2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :0-cv-00-LRS Document Filed 0//00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 0 JOSEPH A. PAKOOTAS, an individual and enrolled member of e Confederated Tribes of e Colville Reservation;
More informationCase 0:06-cv KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:06-cv-60557-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 06-60557-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON LIZ ORDONEZ-DAWES, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:08-cv SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:08-cv-00323-SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; ALLEGHENY DEFENSE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ROBERTS IRRIGATION COMPANY, INC., v. HORTAU CORP. and HORTAU, INC., Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER 16-cv-0028-slc Defendants. Plaintiff
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1341 Document: 31 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page: 1 APRIL DEBOER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT -vs- 6 Cir #14-1341 ED Mi #12-civ-10285 RICHARD SNYDER,
More informationA PLAINTIFF S GUIDE TO CIVIL IMMUNITY
A PLAINTIFF S GUIDE TO CIVIL IMMUNITY Mike Comer Patterson Comer Law Firm 0 Main Ave., Ste. A Norport, AL 5476 (05) 759-99 Ph. (05) 759-99 Fax Immunity from e civil liability at ordinarily attaches to
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-LAB-KSC Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 0CV-LAB (CAB) vs. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
More informationCase 9:15-cv KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:15-cv-80328-KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2015 Page 1 of 10 DAVID A. FAILLA and DONNA A. FAILLA, Appellants, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS E.R. ZEILER EXCAVATING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION April 18, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 257447 Monroe Circuit Court VALENTI, TROBEC & CHANDLER,
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 informationAll about Booker. By Alan Ellis and James H. Feldman, Jr. 1.
All about Booker By Alan Ellis and James H. Feldman, Jr. 1 www.alanellis.com On January 12, 2005, e Supreme Court announced its muchanticipated opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. --, 125 S.Ct.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION JENNIFER L. HIGGINS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No. 07-0495-CV-W-SOW ) MARGARET SPELLINGS, ) Secy. of e
More informationUnited States v. John C. Grimberg Co.
No Shepard s Signal As of: October 23, 2017 2:19 PM Z United States v. John C. Grimberg Co. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division October 19, 2017, Filed
More informationCase 9:14-cv KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2015 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:14-cv-81184-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2015 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-81184-CIV-MARRA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
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 information1:14-cv LJO-GSA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57467
Page 1 AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES., a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff, v. TOTAL TEAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No CV-HLM-4. versus
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 04-13740 D.C. Docket No. 04-00003-CV-HLM-4 SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, GALE PELFREY, BONNIE JONES, LORA SISSON, individually and on behalf
More informationNo. 49,116-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * * By: C. A. Martin, III * * * * *
Judgment rendered July 9, 2014. Application for rehearing may be filed wiin e delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 49,116-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * LANDFORD ANTHONY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION MEMORANDUM RULING
Tipton et al v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Co et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION EUGENE TIPTON AND MILDRED TIPTON VERSUS KEITH LANDEN, ET AL. CIVIL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session RALPH ALLEY, ET AL., v. QUEBECOR WORLD KINGSPORT, INC., d/n/a QUEBECOR WORLD HAWKINS, INC. Direct Appeal from e Circuit Court for Hawkins
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 informationCase 2:12-cv MSD-LRL Document 16 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 724 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 2:12-cv-00200-MSD-LRL Document 16 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 724 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division JAN 2 4 2013 CLERK, U.S. HiSlRlCl COURT NQPFG1.K.
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 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 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 informationCase 2:11-cv JTM-JCW Document Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cv-00926-JTM-JCW Document 494-1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LUTHER SCOTT, JR., and LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP CIVIL ACTION
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC. D/B/A AMERICAN HYDRO; AND ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC., A
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 7, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 7, 2006 Session CARLTON J. DITTO v. DELAWARE SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. Appeal from e Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 03-1234 Howell N. Peoples,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2014 Session WILLIAM D. STALKER, ET AL. v. DAVID R. NUTTER, ET AL. Appeal from e Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2008C1 Tom E. Gray, Chancellor
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION K. A. F., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent, ORDER ON WIFE S MOTION TO COMPEL
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ** GROUP, INC.,
More informationCase 2:17-cv DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:17-cv-00207-DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION HOMELAND MUNITIONS, LLC, BIRKEN STARTREE HOLDINGS, CORP., KILO CHARLIE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Elgene Luzon De-Amor,
De-Amor et al v. Cabalas et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ELGENE LUZON DE-AMOR, vs. Plaintiff, BUENAVENTURA C. CABALAN, ET AL., Defendants. CIVIL NO. 19-00128
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM OPINION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM CRAFTWORLD INTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant vs. KING ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. OPINION Supreme Court Case No.: CVA97-043 Superior Court Case No.:CV0914-94
More informationConstruction Law: Recent Developments of Importance
Construction Law: Recent Developments of Importance Bruce Reynolds and James MacLellan Published in the Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada (2002 Lexpert/American Lawyer Media) During the past year
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 08-171 TECHE ELECTRIC SUPPLY, L.L.C. VERSUS M.D. DESCANT, INC., ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 SERETTA CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-1562 GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., ET AL., Appellee. Opinion
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY ** LOWER INSURANCE COMPANY, TRIBUNAL NO ** Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2005 WMS CONSTRUCTION, INC., ** Appellant, ** vs.
More informationSUMMIT CONTRACTING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. ASHLAND HEIGHTS, LP, Defendant. Civil No. 3:16-CV-17
Page 1 SUMMIT CONTRACTING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. ASHLAND HEIGHTS, LP, Defendant. Civil No. 3:16-CV-17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION 2016 U.S.
More informationNO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE PETITIONER. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENTS and AMY UNKNOWN
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE PETITIONER VS. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENTS and AMY UNKNOWN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE-KJM Document 32 Filed 08/26/2009 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-0-MCE-KJM Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Alan Gura (Calif. Bar No. ) Gura & Possessky, PLLC 0 N. Columbus St., Suite 0 Alexandria, VA 0..0/Fax 0.. Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr. (Calif. Bar No. )
More informationCase 3:13-cv DGC Document 120 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:13-cv-08045-DGC Document 120 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 12 Richard W. Hughes (NM Bar No. 1230) Rostein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu LLP 1215 Paseo De Peralta Santa Fe, New
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :-cv-00-rcj -VPC Document Filed 0// Page of DANIEL G. BOGDEN United States Attorney HOLLY A. VANCE Assistant United States Attorney 00 West Liberty Street, Suite 00 Reno, Nevada 0 Tel: ( - Fax: (
More informationCase: 3:15-cv slc Document #: 21 Filed: 12/16/15 Page 1 of 11
Case: 3:15-cv-00300-slc Document #: 21 Filed: 12/16/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN JEFFREY BRILL, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. 15-cv-300-slc
More informationCase 2:06-cv MJP Document 30-1 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-00-MJP Document 0- Filed //00 Page of Hon. Marsha J. Pechman 0 0 J.L. and M.L., and eir minor daughter, K.L., Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. JESSE JOE HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, vs. No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JESSE JOE HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, vs. No. 3:06-CV-846-P NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
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 informationCase 6:09-cv CMH Document 109 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 2355 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 6:09-cv-00626-CMH Document 109 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 2355 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOHN PAUL DEHART, JR. *CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:09-0626 VS. BP AMERICA,
More informationCONTRACT FOR ROOF REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT - Milford Middle School
CONTRACT FOR ROOF REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT - Milford Middle School THIS AGREEMENT made this day of, 2013 between the Milford School District, a New Hampshire school district having a usual place of business
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 informationAPPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT TO POLISH CITIZENS
Judgment of 27 April 2005, HTU 1/05UTH Summary protected by copyright ALICATION OF THE EUROEAN ARREST WARRANT TO OLISH CITIZENS Type of proceedings: HTUQuestion of law referred by a courtuth Initiator:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 THOMAS P. O BRIEN United States Attorney CHRISTINE C. EWELL Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division CHRISTOPHER BRUNWIN Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Chief, Violent
More informationCase 2:06-cv TJW Document 17 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 2:06-cv-00385-TJW Document 17 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WILLIE RAY, ET AL. Vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-385
More information{*317} FRANCHINI, Justice.
1 HASSE CONTRACTING CO., INC. V. KBK FIN., INC., 1999-NMSC-023, 127 N.M. 316, 980 P.2d 641 HASSE CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Respondent, vs. KBK FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Petitioner,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE B207453
Filed 4/8/09; pub. order 4/30/09 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE RENE FLORES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. B207453 (Los
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: RON WILSON, LaRHONDA WILSON, Debtors. CASE NO. 07-11862 Section A CHAPTER 13 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES TRUSTEE S
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-02818-AT Document 18 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BATASKI BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
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 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 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 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 informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Koontz, S.J.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. SYNCHRONIZED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. v. Record No. 131569 October
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sherfey et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHAD SHERFEY, ET AL., ) CASE NO.1:16CV776 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02-2210 DAVID BOLAND, INCORPORATED, : : Appellant, : : vs. : : INTERCARGO INSURANCE COMPANY, : : Appellee. : : QUESTION OF LAW CERTIFIED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Alvarado v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC Doc. United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JAZMIN ALVARADO, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant.
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 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Respondents. Petitioner, Gerald Carter (hereafter, the petitioner ), is a state prisoner
Carter v. State of Sou Carolina et al Doc. 5 6:05-cv-02851-TLW Date Filed 10/06/2005 Entry Number 5 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Gerald Stephon Carter, #175348; vs.
More informationCAPITAL CASE. No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DONALD WAYNE STROUTH, Petitioner. vs. ROLAND W. COLSON, Warden.
CAPITAL CASE No. 12-7720 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DONALD WAYNE STROUTH, Petitioner vs. ROLAND W. COLSON, Warden Respondent ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationArkansas Supreme Court Holds Invalid Arbitration Agreement For Lack of Mutuality
Arbitration Law Review Volume 7 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 17 2015 Arkansas Supreme Court Holds Invalid Arbitration Agreement For Lack of Mutuality Nathaniel Conti Follow this and additional
More informationPERFORMANCE & PAYMENT BONDS
310 C H A P T E R 1 3 PERFORMANCE & PAYMENT BONDS What is a Bond? INTRODUCTION The term bond can be confusing, because it has so many different meanings in various commercial contexts. A municipal bond
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JENNIFER LANE, Plaintiff, v. GRANT COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Defendant. NO. CV--0-RHW ORDER ADDRESSING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS Before
More informationCase 1:10-cv AJ Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2011 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:10-cv-24089-AJ Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 KAUSTUBH BADKAR, vs. Plaintiff NCL (BAHAMAS LTD., Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00132-MR-DLH TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ) ENTERPRISE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TERRITORY OF ANGUILLA (CIVIL) AD and
CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 1995/0021 THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TERRITORY OF ANGUILLA (CIVIL) AD 2009 BETWEEN: RAFAEL VEGAS and 1. GRAZINA ADAMCZYK (As personal representative
More informationKBW ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. JAYNES CORPORATION, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:13-cv GMN-CWH
Page 1 KBW ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. JAYNES CORPORATION, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:13-cv-01771-GMN-CWH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18220
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 information6:11-cv RAW Document 118 Filed in ED/OK on 09/30/14 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
6:11-cv-00030-RAW Document 118 Filed in ED/OK on 09/30/14 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. Scott ) Pruitt, in his official
More informationROGERS JOSEPH O DONNELL & PHILLIPS
ROGERS JOSEPH O DONNELL & PHILLIPS 311 California Street San Francisco CA 94104 415.956.2828 415.956.6457 fax www.rjop.com AGCC/LAC NEW CASES OF INTEREST (March 11 through April 5, 2002) Prepared by Aaron
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES OPINION
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. V. UNITED STATES FID. & GUAR. CO., 1969-NMSC-003, 79 N.M. 722, 449 P.2d 324 (S. Ct. 1969) ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES
More informationWESTERN NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (WNMIC) Sub-Contractors and/or Material Supplier Questionnaire
WESTERN NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (WNMIC) Sub-Contractors and/or Material Supplier Questionnaire Bond # Your return of a completed claims questionnaire is an extremely important part of WNMIC s
More informationGEORGE MASON AMERICAN INN OF COURT A LITIGATOR S PERPSECTIVE ON CONTRACTS
GEORGE MASON AMERICAN INN OF COURT A LITIGATOR S PERPSECTIVE ON CONTRACTS September 26, 2017 Pupilage Team Members: Randall K. Miller, Esq. Nicholas M. DePalma, Esq. Michelle Owen West (Student Member)
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 informationCase 9:12-cv KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2013 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:12-cv-80792-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2013 Page 1 of 7 JOHN PINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 12-80792-Civ-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN vs. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ORDER
Case 1: 1 0-cv-00386-L Y Document 53 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION FILED lon JUN -2 ~H \\: 48 JEFFREY H. REED, AN INDIVIDUAL,
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI. Consolidated Supplemental Letter Brief
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI May 18, 2012 JIM HOOD ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION United States Court of Appeals for e Fif Circuit Office of e Clerk Attn: Ms. Sabrina M. Hains 600 S. Maestri Place
More informationSalvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2006 Salvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1449
More information