Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C. W. Moore Co.
| Decision Date | 20 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 46161,46161 |
| Citation | 245 N.W.2d 866,310 Minn. 140 |
| Parties | NELSON ROOFING AND CONTRACTING, INC., Respondent, v. C. W. MOORE CO., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The 1-year limitation provided in Minn.St. 574.31 for actions on a public contractor's bond is only a minimum, and inconsistent language in a bond providing a longer limitation period will prevail over the statute.
Tom Wangensteen, Chisholm, for appellants.
Murphy, Lano, Kalar & Murphy, Grand Rapids, for respondent.
Heard before TODD, MacLAUGHLIN, and MARSDEN, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
*
C. W. Moore Company was the general contractor and Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc., was a subcontractor in the construction of public nursing home additions in Itasca County. As required by Minn.St. 574.26, Moore purchased a labor and materials payment bond from United Pacific Insurance Company. Minn.St. 574.31 provides in pertinent part:
'No action shall be maintained on any such bond unless within 90 days after the completion of the contract and acceptance thereof by the proper public authorities, the claimant shall file a written notice * * * nor unless the action is begun within one year after the filing of such notice.'
However, the language of the bond issued by United Pacific is inconsistent:
'No suit or action shall be commenced hereunder by any claimant:
'b) After the expiration of one (1) year following the date on which Principal ceased Work on said Contract * * *.'
On February 2, 1973, Nelson filed with the Itasca County auditor notice of a claim for $6,972.92. Moore completed its work on August 21, 1973, and it was accepted by the Itasca Nursing Home Commission on November 21, 1973. Nelson commenced this lawsuit on March 26, 1974, within the limitation period provided in the bond, but not within the statutory period provided in Minn.St. 574.31.
After trial on the merits, judgment was entered against Moore on the underlying obligation and against United Pacific on the bond. United Pacific had raised as an affirmative defense Nelson's failure to comply with Minn.St. 574.31, but the trial court held:
'That the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of both the statute and the bond, whichever are greater, so long as the plaintiff is not thereby granted rights additional to or superior to other claimants.'
The judgment against Moore is not contested on appeal. Nor is there any contention by United Pacific that Nelson failed to comply in the first place with the notice requirement in Minn.St. 574.31. The issue raised is that Nelson failed to comply with the 1-year statute of limitations as provided in Minn.St. 574.31 and that this statutory provision must prevail over inconsistent language in the bond.
United Pacific argues that our holding in Shandorf v. Standard Surety & Cas. Co., 198 Minn. 96, 268 N.W. 843 (1936), is controlling. However, the bond at issue in Shandorf did not contain a provision limiting the time in which an action could be brought. 1 Therefore, Shandorf did not decide the issue presented here, i.e., what effect is to be given to bond language inconsistent with the statutory limitation period.
Dicta in several of our cases indicate that a bond given pursuant to the statute must be read with the statute, and its scope limited thereby. See, Healy Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary Dist., 284 Minn. 8, 169 N.W.2d 50 (1969), which summarizes and quotes many of these cases. Our earliest statement of this principle is in Combs v. Jackson, 69 Minn. 336, 337, 72 N.W. 565, 566 (1897):
'Where a bond is thus given, pursuant to the provisions of a statute, it must be construed in the light of the statute, and extended, as well as limited in its scope, to those cases contemplated by the statute, Unless violence would be done to the language of the bond by such construction.' (Italics supplied.)
Generally, the italicized limitation, under which inconsistent bond language would prevail over the statute, has remained in subsequent restatements. See, for example, Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 370, 294 N.W. 210, 212 (1940). However, the principle has been modified to some extent in Smith & Wyman Co. v. Carlsted, 165 Minn. 313, 315, 206 N.W. 450, 451 (1925), as follows:
'* * * The decision * * * to the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jasper v. Smith
...purposes contained in that statute. State Sur. Co. v. Lensing, 249 N.W.2d 608, 611 (Iowa 1977); Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C.W. Moore Co., 310 Minn. 140, 245 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1976); Way v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles of State of Neb., 217 Neb. 641, 351 N.W.2d 46, 47 (1984); Giese v. ......
-
American Druggists Ins. v. Thompson Lumber Co.
...72 N.W. 565, 566 (1897). A contractor's bond cannot diminish the protection afforded by statute. Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C.W. Moore Co., 310 Minn. 140, 245 N.W.2d 866 (1976). Thus, we remand this issue to the trial court to consider an appropriate award of reasonable attorney'......
-
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Constr. Co.
...for the execution of a public work to which the mechanics' lien statute does not apply." Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C. W. Moore Co., 310 Minn. 140, 144, 245 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1976) (quotation omitted). Recovery on a payment bond is conditioned upon the claimant providing timely no......
-
Metro Milwaukee Auto Auction v. Coulson
...with a statute must be read with the statute, and the statute limits the scope of the bond. Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C.W. Moore Co., 310 Minn. 140, 142, 245 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1976). The earliest statement of this principle in Minnesota is in Combs v. Jackson, 69 Minn. 336, 337, ......