Hunt Construction Corporation hired National Wrecking Corporation as a subcontractor to a larger project that Hunt oversaw. National Wrecking agreed to finish its work by February 12, 2004. Around the deadline, Hunt learned that the work would be delayed. Hunt complained to National Wrecking and incur red additional expenses for the delay in the work. National Wrecking completed its work on April 6, 2004. Even though Hunt knew of the impending delay since early February, Hunt failed to notify National Wrecking's sureties of the default until July 2004. When it filed suit against National Wrecking for breach of contract and added National Wrecking's sureties, National Wrecking's sureties sought summary judgment, arguing that Hunt had failed to provide timely notice of the default. The district court granted summary judgment in National Wrecking's favor. Hunt appealed, arguing that the surety bond contract did not require notice as a condition precedent to recovery. No reference to notice is provided in the bond form in question. How do you think the court of appeals ruled? Do you think that National Wrecking's sureties needed to state notice as a condition precedent to collection?

  • CreatedOctober 21, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question