Legal Opinion
Reliance Insurance v. U.S. Bank of Washington, N.A.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 29, 1998No. 95-35872PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
This is a dispute between a bank and a surety over which of them gets a government payment into a defaulting contractor’s bank account.
FACTS
The case was adjudicated on cross motions for summary judgment. The facts below are those set out in affidavits, stipulations, and other materials as to which there is no dispute.
Kruse Construction got a government contract to improve a Coast Guard station at Cape Disappointment, Washington. Because it was a federal project, laborers and materi-almen were secured by a surety bond pursuant to the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270a(a)(2),…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Pearlman v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Martin v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Public Utility District No. 1 v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3185, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4396 Reliance Insurance Co., a Pennsylvania Corporation v. U.S. Bank of Washington, N.A., a National Banking AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998