Legal Opinion
Taylor Construction Inc. v. ABT Service Corp. Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 21, 1998No. 95-35883PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:
In this case, a Miller Act surety failed to pay a subcontractor the entire amount due under the bonded subcontract claiming that the Miller Act imposes no duty to pay the subcontractor the amount in the subcontract’s savings clause. The district court disagreed, granting summary judgment against the surety and ordering it to pay the entire amount due under the contract, including under the savings clause. We now affirm because the Miller Act clearly requires a surety to pay the entire amount due under the contract when the prime contractor defaults.
I. BACKGROUND
ABT…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Calvin Tomkins Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States Ex Rel. Sherman v. Carter Constr. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome EstatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- 25 cont.cas.fed. (Cch) 83,002, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1342 United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of A. v. Deblasio Construction, Inc. v. Mountain States Construction Co., and Mountain States Construction Co., Third Party v. United Pacific Insurance Co., Third Party v. A. v. Deblasio and Jean Deblasio, His Wife, and the Martial Community Composedof Them, Third Party United States of America, Etc. v. Mountain States Construction Company, and Mountain States Construction Co., Third Party v. United Pacific Insurance Co., Third Party v. A. v. Deblasio and Jean Deblasio, Etc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.