Legal Opinion

REM Construction, Inc. v. Houghton

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 17, 1989No. 2 CA-SA 89-0116PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

This special action requires us to determine whether a surplus line insurer issuing bid, payment and performance bonds is “an insurer authorized to transact a surety business in this state” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 20-1531 and “a surety company ... duly authorized to do business in this state" within the meaning of A.R.S. § 34-222(C). For the reasons set forth below, we accept jurisdiction, but deny relief.

The relevant facts are undisputed. On June 8, 1989, the City of Tucson issued an invitation for bids for a public construction project designated as the Cushing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Railroad Roofing & Building Supply Co. v. Financial Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  2. Osborne v. EdisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1973
  3. Western Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1988
  4. Adams v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty FundAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  5. Villagonza v. Hawaii Insurance Guaranty Ass'nHawaii Supreme Court · 1989

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Smith v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of LondonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API