By Edward February 28, 2023 Articles
Bovis Kyle attorney Edward “Ward” Pankowski obtained a verdict in favor of the defense in a recent diminished-value lawsuit. With the defendant having stipulated to liability, the plaintiff sought over $5,000 in total damages, including court costs and expert witness fees.
Read MoreBy Gregory R. Veal January 25, 2023 Articles
Originally posted in the Winter 2022 Surety Bond Quarterly NewsletterThe 2010 version of the AIA A312 performance bond is an effort to balance the rights and duties of the obligee and the surety. It replaces the 1984 version, with a few tweaks and one major shift of risk, in Section 4. As with almost all bonds, those rights and duties are subject to certain conditions. Even the most rudimentary performance bond usually begins, "NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of this bond is … ." The A312 bond, though, sets out perhaps the most developed set of conditions of any form.
Read MoreBy Wayne Tartline December 22, 2022 Articles
Firm Partners Wayne Tartline and Eric Connelly obtained a defense-friendly verdict in Cobb County Superior Court earlier this month, a success they have been working toward since 2015. Read MoreBy Brian H. Alligood November 16, 2022 Articles
North Carolina is a state that continues to recognize tort causes of action for adultery and destroying a marriage. The torts are respectively known as “criminal conversation” and “alienation of affections.” Our North Carolina office successfully defended an action that alleged both claims.
Read MoreBy Gregory R. Veal October 19, 2022 Articles
A recent decision from the Northern District of Georgia confirmed important suretyship principles in granting partial summary judgment against an obligee’s attempt to expand the performance bond scope. IHI E&C Int’l Corp. v. Robinson Mech. Contrs., Inc. and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180174 (Sept. 30, 2022). The court carefully examined the terms of the bond, the language of the incorporated subcontract, and the context of the parties’ dealings in ruling that the bond covered only the $24 million installation subcontract, not an additional $40 million in fabrication purchase orders by the same principal on the same project.
Read More