Legal Opinion · Dissent

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Bright Metal Specialties, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided May 22, 2001No. 98-5404, 98-5405Published

1DissentGarwood, Circuit Judge

I concur in all of Judge Fay’s cogent opinion except only so much thereof as holds that Wausau is bound by the arbitration provisions in the Bright/A-1 Subcontract. I respectfully dissent from the latter holding.

The majority correctly recognizes that the September 1993 Bright/A-1 Subcontract does not of itself bind Wausau to its arbitration provisions, notwithstanding Wausau’s status as Miller Act performance and payment bond surety for the project general contractor A-l, because Wausau was not a party to the Bright/A-1 Subcontract.1 The majority instead holds that Wausau became bound to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. Pool and Canfield, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API