By David A. Harris March 23, 2018 Articles
The issue arising under the indemnity agreement in the last few years that has likely received the most inconsistent treatment by courts is the surety’s claim for preliminary injunctive relief on collateral demands. To obtain a preliminary injunction a surety must establish:
1. Substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
2. Irreparable harm absent injunctive relief;
3. That the threatened harm outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and
4. If issued, the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest.
Courts that deny these injunctions usually get hung up on the surety’s claim of irreparable harm and whether the harm claimed by the surety outweighs the harm the indemnitors claim they will incur if the injunction is granted. For example, one court held that, because the surety presented no evidence it would be unable to obtain a monetary judgment without a preliminary injunction, it had not established irreparable harm. Ignoring the surety’s particular relationship and obligations, the court declared that “to find that irreparable harm exists in this instance would set a precedent for irreparable harm in any breach of contract case where a plaintiff may potentially have a right to a defendant’s assets.” Western Sur. Co. v. Rock Branch Mech., Inc., 5:16-CV-09550, 2016 WL 6462100 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 31, 2016).
In another case, where the surety showed the indemnitors were transferring assets, the court still denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The court accepted the indemnitors’ argument that because the transfers were to a trustee “for the benefit of its creditors” there was no evidence the transfers risked dissipation of assets. According to the court, the surety did not meet its burden of showing irreparable harm or that monetary relief later, in the form of a final judgment, was inadequate. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. DeNovo Constructors, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 3d 810, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
One court denied the surety’s request for collateral and instead fashioned its own relief by freezing the indemnitors’ assets (subject to some exceptions). The court got there by reasoning that the alternative relief would better balance the equities. The court was also influenced by the principal’s argument that it would be forced to close its doors and lay off 200 employees if ordered to post the collateral security demanded by the surety. The court found that as a result the public interest justified a change in relief to save the business. Western Sur. Co. v. Futurenet Grp., Inc., No. 16-CV-11055, 2016 WL 3180188 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2016).
Is all hope lost? Can the surety ever prevail on a preliminary injunction and obtain an order requiring the indemnitors to post collateral security as agreed and as required in the indemnity agreement?
There is good news. Sureties can and should prevail. Read More