Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp.
68 F.3d 561 | Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | 1995
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A plumbing industry board sued a surety company to recover on a performance bond after a contractor failed to pay employee benefits. The appeals court reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the case entirely, ruling that the federal district court had no legal authority to hear the case because it involved only state law claims about a surety bond. This matters to subcontractors because it shows that disputes over surety bonds may not be handled in federal court, even when they involve collective bargaining agreements.
Key Takeaways
- •Surety bond disputes based on state law cannot automatically be filed in federal court—check whether your case qualifies for federal jurisdiction before filing
- •Just because a contract involves a collective bargaining agreement doesn't mean federal courts will take the case if the core claim is about state law
- •If you're suing on a surety bond, file in state court unless your claim clearly involves federal law or ERISA/LMRA issues
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue a surety company in federal court if the bond is tied to a union collective bargaining agreement?
Not automatically. Even though a collective bargaining agreement is involved, if your claim is based purely on state surety bond law, federal courts may lack jurisdiction. You'll likely need to file in state court instead. Consult an attorney to determine whether your specific claim involves federal law issues that would allow federal court jurisdiction.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.