Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Millis Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc.
Decision Date | 07 April 1981 |
Citation | 418 N.E.2d 645,11 Mass.App.Ct. 998 |
Parties | HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. MILLIS ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, INC. et al. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Stephen R. Kravetz, Foxboro, for defendants.
Peter G. Hermes, Boston (Deborah S. Griffin, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Before GRANT, BROWN and KASS, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiff Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (the bonding company) paid $79,000 in settlement of a claim arising from the failure of a roof which Millis Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (Millis), had installed. The bonding company had executed, as a surety, a subcontractor's performance bond on the work in question. Exercising rights under a general indemnity agreement, the bonding company brought an action for the amount of the settlement against Millis and its president, Martin Doliner, who was a co-indemnitor on the indemnity agreement. A motion for summary judgment by the bonding company was allowed and judgment for $79,000, plus interest, was entered against Millis and Doliner, jointly and severally. Under Article V of the indemnity agreement, Millis and Doliner agreed to indemnify the bonding company "against any and all liability ... by reason of having executed any Bond ...." Article VII of the agreements authorized the bonding company to " adjust, settle or compromise any claim, demand, suit or judgment upon any of the Bonds, unless the Indemnitors (1) shall request the Surety to litigate such claim or demand, or to defend such suit ... and (2) shall deposit with the Surety, at the time of such request, cash or collateral ... to be used in paying any judgment rendered ...." Article VI provided that the liability of the indemnitors
In view of the provisions of the indemnity agreement, the attempt by the defendants to attack the summary judgment on the ground that blame for the roof failure lay elsewhere is misdirected. To the extent that may be an issue of fact, it is not material as it was only necessary that the bonding company have acted in good faith when it settled the claim against Millis. See General Ins. Co. v. Singleton, 40 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 115 Cal.Rptr. 291 (1974); Ford v. Aetna Ins. Co., 394 S.W.2d 693, 698 (Tex.Civ.App.1965). The broad language of the indemnity agreement reflects an intention to provide comprehensive reimbursement to the bonding company of money expended by it in connection with claims against Millis. Peerless Cas. Co. v. Marinucci Bros. & Co., 336 Mass. 691, 695, 147 N.E.2d 751 (1958). As to the issue of its good faith, the bonding company filed affidavits, interrogatories answered by the general contractor on the job in question, technical reports received by it, and a deposition of Doliner. Nothing offered by the defendants contradicts the bonding company's materials to the effect that it had received evidence tending to prove that Millis' work on the roof had been deficient and that a substance used had (by Millis' own admission) not performed properly. Those materials included a sworn statement by the assistant secretary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwanbeck v. Federal-Mogul Corp.
...Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc., 297 Mass. 398, 416-417, 8 N.E.2d 895 (1937); Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co. v. Millis Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., 11 Mass.App.Ct. 998, 999-1000, 418 N.E.2d 645 (1981). Bad faith was certainly not implicated in F-M's dealing with another buyer. That righ......
-
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Retardation
...doing of wrong, or breach of duty through motive of self-interest or ill will." Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Millis Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., 11 Mass.App.Ct. 998, 999-1000, 418 N.E.2d 645 (1981), citing Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc., 297 Mass. 398, 416-417, 8 N.E.2d 895 (1937).......
-
Lawson v. Affirmative Equities Co., L.P.
...doing of wrong, or breach of a duty through motive of self-interest or ill will." Hartford Acc. & Indemnity Co. v. Millis Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., 11 Mass.App.Ct. 998, 999-1000, 418 N.E.2d 645 (1981); Schwanbeck v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 31 Mass.App.Ct. 390, 404, 578 N.E.2d 789 (1991) (sa......
-
Sax v. DiPrete
...doing of wrong, or breach of a duty through motive of self-interest or ill will." Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Millis Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., 11 Mass.App.Ct. 998, 999-1000, 418 N.E.2d 645 (1981); Schwanbeck v. Fed.-Mogul Corp., 31 Mass. App.Ct. 390, 404, 578 N.E.2d 789 (1991) (same), ......
-
Annual survey of fidelity and surety law, 1993.
...1384 (La.App. 1993). (37.)827 F.Supp. 385 (E.D.La. 1993). (38.)431 S.E.2d 302 (Va. 1993). (39.)622 N.E.2d 283 (Mass.App. 1993). (40.)418 N.E.2d 645 (Mass.App. (41.)621 So.2d 1227 (Ala. 1993). (42.)856 P.2d 240 (Nev. 1993). (43.)2 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 1993). (44.)371 U.S. 132 (1962). (45.)602 ......