Posts tagged "Hartford"

N-Tek Construction Services, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-028-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   14-P-1483                                       Appeals Court   N-TEK CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.  vs.  HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 14-P-1483. Essex.     November 5, 2015. – March 14, 2016. Present:  Agnes, Sullivan, & Blake, JJ.     Public Works, Payment bond.  Surety.  Notice.  Bond, Public works, Construction contract bond.  Contract, Public works, Construction contract, Bond, Surety.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 18, 2010.   After transfer within the Superior Court Department, the case was heard by Timothy Q. Feeley, J.     Edward J. Quinlan for the plaintiff. John W. DiNicola, II, for the defendant.     AGNES, J.  In this case we address the notice provision contained in G. L. c. 149, § 29, as amended by St. 1972, c. 774, § 5 (§ 29),[1] in the context of a $ 23.29 million publicly funded project to repair a bridge in Gloucester (project).  In particular, we decide whether the electronic mail message (e-mail) notice given by the claimant, N-Tek Construction Services, Inc. (N-Tek), to the general contractor, SPS New England, Inc. (SPS), satisfied § 29.  N-Tek contends that the Superior Court judge, who tried this case without a jury, erred in concluding that the e-mail sent to SPS by N-Tek’s principal failed to satisfy the requirements of § 29.  For the reasons that follow, we affirm. SPS, the general contractor, posted a payment bond from a surety, Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford).  N-Tek filed the underlying action, seeking recovery against SPS’s bond pursuant to G. L. c. 149, § 29, based on its claim that it had not been fully paid for its work furnished to a subcontractor, Seaway Coatings, Inc. (Seaway).  N-Tek sought to reach and apply the payment bond funds to satisfy outstanding invoices.  Hartford denied liability.  After a bench trial, the judge found that N-Tek did not provide sufficient written notice of its bond claim to SPS as required by § 29, and ordered judgment to enter for Hartford.  On appeal, N-Tek argues that the judge misinterpreted § 29 by imposing an added requirement that the notice “include and communicate an intent to assert a claim against the [g]eneral [c]ontractor’s” bond, based on Federal cases construing the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134 (2002), the Federal analogue to § 29.[2] Facts.  We summarize the facts found by the judge, supplemented by undisputed parts of the record. 1.  Project.  On August 14, 2008, the Massachusetts Highway Department (department)[3] […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 14, 2016 at 10:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,