Construction Web guide: infrastructure, buildings, engineering, architectureThelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
Web directory of federal, state, local governments; courts; legislatures; Congress; trade groups; businesses; colleges; libraries; publications; international agencies affecting construction, engineering, architecture, infrastructure Web directory of resources on licensing, registration, building codes, new projects, bidding, financing, environment, specifications, e-commerce, laws, regulations, insurance, bonds, jobs, safety, best practices, engineering, architecture, training Web guide to dictionaries; encyclopedias; reference materials; business and international travel resources; people finders; telephone numbers; Web addresses; postal codes; currency, metric converters; time zones; calendars; travel; news
More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure
Site Search Site Map Registration About Thelen ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us

Public-Private Partnerships
Private Financing of Infrastructure in California: Overview of PPP Opportunities and Challenges

'Material Effect'
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Proof Needed to Impose False Claims Act Liability on Subcontractors

Got Early Completion
Owner’s Oral Promise to Pay Subcontractor Enforced by Massachusetts Court

Block Claims of Waiver
When Loans Go Bad, Pre-Workout Agreements Allow Lenders to Protect Their Rights While Negotiating

Bankruptcy Code Is No Bar
Bankrupt Sub’s Claim Against General Contractor Is a Non-Core Proceeding and Must Be Arbitrated, U.S. Court Holds

Saves Time
Prequalification in Government Construction Contracts: How It Works, How Disputes Are Resolved

Fabrication, Design Cases
U.S. Court Permits Quantum Meruit Claims for Work Not Controlled by Contract

No Own Work Exclusion
Florida, South Carolina Supreme Courts Hold that Contractors’ CGL Policies Cover Damages Arising from Subs’ Defective Work

Previous Issues

Construction Industry News

Surety Exonerated When General Contractor Enters into Settlement Agreement and Release with Subcontractor Without Surety's Consent


October 9, 2000


Back to Industry Newsletters
 

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP

In 1994, B.P. Richards was a subcontractor to general contractor Chartered Construction Corporation on a project for the Delano Joint Union High School District in Fresno County. A dispute arose over progress payments, and Richards filed a $498,238.76 stop notice. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, as surety, executed a stop notice release bond.

Richards filed suit against Chartered, the district and Travelers. The litigation was stayed pending arbitration. Richards and Chartered arbitrated the matter, and during the arbitration they entered into a voluntary settlement agreement under which Chartered agreed to pay $575,000 over several years: $385,000 for work performed and $180,000 in attorney fees. The settlement agreement contained a release of all mutual claims, present and future, arising from the subject matter of the action. The prevailing party in a suit to enforce the settlement agreement would receive attorney fees. The trial court retained jurisdiction over the action until the agreement was fully performed. Travelers was not a party to the settlement agreement and never was asked for its consent.

In 1998, Chartered defaulted on a settlement payment. Richards successfully lifted the stay pending arbitration and pressed the litigation against Chartered and Travelers. The court granted Richards' motion against Chartered for entry of judgment based on the settlement agreement and awarded attorney fees in an amount that included Richards' costs of enforcing the settlement agreement against Travelers. Chartered appealed the award.

Travelers moved for summary judgment on grounds that the settlement agreement's mutual release clause constituted a release of Chartered's original obligation to Richards, which exonerated Travelers from its surety obligations as a matter of law. The court denied the motion, concluding that the release was conditioned upon full payment. Travelers also unsuccessfully sought a writ from the Court of Appeal. At trial, Travelers used the same argument in a motion in limine to exclude all evidence other than the settlement agreement. The court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Travelers. Richards appealed, and the appeal was consolidated with Chartered's.

Regarding Richards' appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed Travelers' exoneration. B.P. Richards, Inc. v. Chartered Construction Corp. ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 425, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 9227 (Cal.App. 2000). Travelers argued that Civil Code §2819, concerning suretyship generally, applied to extinguish its obligation. Section 2819 provides that a surety is exonerated if the promisee alters the principal obligation in any way or impairs or suspends the promisee's rights or remedies against the principal unless the surety consents or is indemnified by the principal. The statute applies to material alterations of the principal obligation in a manner not contemplated by the surety. Thus, when Richards entered a settlement agreement releasing the underlying claim, it materially altered Chartered's obligation, and by not obtaining Travelers' consent, it exonerated the surety.

The court also held that Civil Code §2810 compelled the same result. It provides that a surety is not liable if the principal's liability on the original obligation ceases. Here, the general contractor's liability on the original obligation ceased as a result of the releases in the settlement agreement with the subcontractor. "[The subcontractor] fully released [the general contractor] from its claim for payment under the bonded obligation and accepted, in lieu thereof, an unbonded obligation under the settlement agreement."

Richards argued that Civil Code §§3225 and 3226, which specifically apply to stop notice release bonds, applied to prevent such exoneration. Section 3225 states that the surety's obligation cannot be exonerated or released by "any change, alteration, or modification in or of any contract, plans, specifications" or "extension of the time for any payment." Section 3226 states that the sole condition for recovery on the bond is that the claimant be unpaid and qualified to recover under the statutes.

The Court of Appeal concluded that §3225 is narrower in scope than §2819. Section 3225 applies to changes in the contract because of the nature of the work, materials used and timing. In those instances, repeatedly requiring the surety's consent would be burdensome. Section 3225 does not apply to a release of the underlying contractual obligation, as in the settlement agreement. Regarding §3226's mandate that there be no additional conditions imposed for recovery on a bond, the Court of Appeal held that its decision does not impose an additional condition but merely recognizes that there can be no recovery on a bond when the beneficiary has released the underlying obligation.

The court indicated that the subcontractor may have had an argument based on Civil Code §2822 (b). It provides that if the creditor agrees to accept from the principal less than the full amount due without the surety's consent and without any other change to the underlying agreement between the creditor and principal, §2819 does not exonerate the surety from liability for the lesser agreed amount. However, the court found that the subcontractor had waived this argument by failing to raise it in its opening brief.

Regarding Chartered's appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the award of attorney fees. The renewed litigation against Travelers and the resulting increase in attorney fees was directly caused by Chartered's breach of its payment promise in the settlement agreement.


If you would like to receive legal reports and updates more quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form.


For more information about the issues covered in this report, please contact Paul Berning in our San Francisco office at 415-369-7229 or at pwberning@thelen.com or contact your Thelen attorney. For more information about Thelen's Construction and Government Contracts Department, click here.





©2000 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP

More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure

© Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
All rights reserved.
Legal notices, and terms and conditions.

Site Search Site Map Registration About Thelen ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us