Legal Opinion
Island Insurance v. Hawaiian Foliage & Landscape, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 3, 2002No. Nos. 00-16874, 00-16940PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
BERZON, Circuit Judge.
The question in this case is whether the government is an intended beneficiary, for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes due, of the surety bond that insured a subcontractor’s performance. Parties to surety contracts are free, of course, to choose whether or not to insure for tax obligations. We interpret the language of the contract in this case to have done so, *1163and therefore hold that both the state and federal governments are intended beneficiaries of the surety contract to the extent of the subcontractor’s past due tax obligations.
BACKGROUND
Oahu Construction…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pacific Rent-All, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1999
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
- Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Properties Corp.Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1997
- United States v. Crosland Construction Company, Inc., Pacific Employers Insurance Company, and American Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1954
- Westover, Collector of Internal Revenue v. William Simpson Const. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.