United States v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company

Decision Date19 April 1962
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 2868.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
PartiesUNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of MORAN TOWING CORPORATION v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY.

Benjamin A. Smith, of Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Providence, R. I., for plaintiff.

Edward F. Hindle, Ronald R. Lagueux, of Edwards & Angell, Providence, R. I., for defendant.

DAY, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action under the provisions of the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270b. In its complaint the plaintiff alleges that M. A. Gammino Construction Company (hereinafter called Gammino) entered into a contract on or about February 5, 1960 with the United States of America, whereby Gammino agreed to furnish all the labor, equipment and material and to perform all the work required for the construction of a certain breakwater at the United States Naval Base at Newport, Rhode Island; that pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of 40 U.S.C.A. § 270a, Gammino as principal and the defendant as surety executed a payment bond with the United States as obligee, dated February 5, 1960, which was accepted by the United States and which provided in pertinent part as follows:

"THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the principal entered into a certain contract with the Government, numbered and dated as shown above and hereto attached;
"NOW THEREFORE, if the principal shall promptly make payment to all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract, and any and all duly authorized modifications of said contract that may hereafter be made, notice of which modifications to the surety being hereby waived, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue."

Plaintiff further alleges that thereafter, on or about April 20, 1960, plaintiff and Gammino executed a contract whereby the plaintiff agreed to supply certain dump scows for the transportation of breakwater stone at certain rates of compensation per ton from a loading dock at Tiverton, Rhode Island, to the breakwater site; that said contract contained the following provisions:

"3. The stone to be transported hereunder shall consist of quarry run stone 50% of a size 200 lbs. per piece or less, 45% of a size from 200 lbs. to 1000 lbs. per piece, and the remaining 5% of a size not in excess of 1500 lbs. per piece, provided, however, that if it is demonstrated through experience that pieces weighing more than 1000 lbs. are causing damage to the scows or interfering with the dumping process, then and in either event the limitations as to weight per piece shall be 1000 lbs."
"9. We Moran shall be responsible for all ordinary wear and tear to our vessel equipment due to the nature of the material to be transported but you Gammino shall be responsible for any damage to our vessel equipment due to your negligence, or for any damage to our vessel equipment whether or not due to your negligence that may be occasioned by loading or unloading of pieces weighing in excess of 1000 lbs. per piece."

Plaintiff further alleges that pursuant to said contract it furnished two certain scows for the performance of the work required under said contract during the period beginning June 21, 1960 and ending December 9, 1960; that during said period on various occasions said Gammino (1) failed and neglected to use due care in loading said breakwater stone and material into said scows in a proper and careful manner, (2) failed and neglected to limit the breakwater stone placed into said scows as to the size, type, weight, proportion and quantity permitted under the terms of said contract, and loaded stones greatly in excess of the size, weight and quantity permitted thereunder, (3) failed and neglected to limit stones weighing between 1000 and 1500 lbs. each to not more than 5%, or stone weighing 200 to 1000 lbs. each to not more than 45% of the stones to be transported, (4) failed and neglected to place loads about said scows, of which 50% were of a size of 200 lbs. each or less, as called for by said contract, (5) failed, neglected and refused to provide a safe berth at the loading dock and dumping site, and (6) failed and neglected to load a proper cushion before placing said breakwater material in said scows, as required by said contract, as a result of which said scows were extensively damaged and plaintiff lost the use thereof.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that a tug hired by it from Moran Towing & Transportation, Inc. (for any damage to which it is liable to said Moran Towing & Transportation, Inc.) to tow said scows was damaged, as a result of Gammino's breach of its contract and negligence.

Plaintiff makes no claim that it has not been paid the stipulated rate of hire per ton that was payable to it for the transportation of said stone. But it does seek recovery from the defendant for said alleged damages to its scows and to said tug under the terms of said payment bond.

This matter is now before me on the defendant's motion to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • UNITED STATES, ETC. v. Guy H. James Construction Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • September 5, 1972
    ...required by reason of the breach or default of said prime contractor . . ." United States for Use and Benefit of Moran Towing Corporation v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 204 F.Supp. 353, 356 (D.R. I.1962). Damages based on misrepresentation and delays are not within the legislativ......
  • B. C. Richter Contracting Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 1964
    ...Co. v. United States for Use and Benefit of Marino, 297 F.2d 70 (1st Cir. 1961); United States for Use and Benefit of Moran Towing Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 204 F.Supp. 353 (D.C., R.I., 1962). The Miller Act decisions, however, firmly establish the surety's liability for t......
  • US for Kirchdorfer v. Aegis/Zublin Joint Venture
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • August 1, 1994
    ...profits are not recoverable from the surety in an action on the Miller Act payment bond. Id.; United States ex rel. Moran Towing Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 204 F.Supp. 353 (D.R.I.1962). Furthermore, with respect to the "materials" covered by the bond, the cost of capital equipment......
  • United States v. Piracci Construction Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 12, 1975
    ...for labor or materials utilized in the performance of the subcontract. See United States for Use and Benefit of Moran Towing Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 204 F.Supp. 353, 356 (D.R.I.1962). Use plaintiff's cause of action is not defeated by such technical exercises as analyzin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT