LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

WINDSOR METAL FABRICATIONS v GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: WINDSOR METAL FABRICATIONS, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I99_0162, Subcontractor, Payment, Contractor, Windsor, Bond, General Accident, State Finance Law, Statute, Eberhard, Limitations, Provisions, Arbitration, Termination, Construction, Surety, Bill, Appellate Division, Pursuant, Claimant, Demand, Asserting, Summary Judgment, Sue, Public Improvement, Report, Controversy, Prime Contract, Accordance, Labor , ContentID: 120251724

Case Documents
1 1999-11-30 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125633
7 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 7 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PAYMENT
CONTRACTOR
WINDSOR
BOND
GENERAL ACCIDENT
STATE FINANCE LAW
STATUTE
EBERHARD
LIMITATIONS
PROVISIONS
ARBITRATION
TERMINATION
CONSTRUCTION
SURETY
BILL
APPELLATE DIVISION
PURSUANT
COURT
CLAIMANT
DEMAND
ASSERTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SUE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
REPORT
CONTROVERSY
PRIME CONTRACT
ACCORDANCE
LABOR


  WINDSOR METAL FABRICATIONS, LTD., RESPONDENT, v. GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE
  COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLANT.

    94 N.Y.2d 124 (1999).
    November 30, 1999

   2 No. 186

   (99 NY Int. 0162)
   Decided November 30, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Armen Shahinian, for appellant.
   Sol Kodsi, for respondent.
   General Building Contractors of New York State, Inc.;
   Trataros Construction Inc.; Surety Association of America et al.,
   amici curiae.

   BELLACOSA, J.:

   This case presents the puzzle of when the one year limitation period
   for suing a surety on a public improvementconstruction bond begins to
   run, within the meaning of State Finance Law § 137(4)(b). Also
   implicated is whether contractual provisions in a subcontract can
   effectively toll the statutory time period.

   We conclude that the one year period starts to be counted as of the
   time when a subcontractor has demanded final payment from the general
   contractor with whom it contracted, and ninety days have passed since
   the subcontractor ceased work on the project. This timeframe may not
   be extended or overridden by any provisions of the subcontract.

                                     I.

   This controversy arises out of a public improvement contract for the
   construction of a health care facility at Greenhaven Correctional
   Facility. Eberhard Construction Company, general contractor, held the
   prime contract with the State of New York. Plaintiff Windsor
   subcontracted with Eberhard to provide and erect all structural steel
   for the project, at a cost of $404,000.

   Defendant General Accident provided the statutory payment bond for the
SNIPPETS:
  • This case presents the puzzle of when the one year limitation period for suing a surety on a
  • Also implicated is whether contractual provisions in a subcontract can effectively toll the
  • We conclude that the one year period starts to be counted as of the time when a subcontractor
  • This controversy arises out of a public improvement contract for the construction of a health
  • Eberhard Construction Company, general contractor, held the prime contract with the State of
  • Plaintiff Windsor subcontracted with Eberhard to provide and erect all structural steel for
  • Defendant General Accident provided the statutory payment bond for the project.
  • This resulted in the termination of the subcontract with Windsor and in Windsor's cessation
  • On April 19, 1995, Windsor also filed a demand for arbitration against Eberhard, seeking the
  • Windsor immediately notified General Accident of the arbitration, and General Accident
  • General Accident raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense ), and Supreme
  • the Appellate Division unanimously reversed and granted that part of Windsor's motion seeking
  • Section 137of State Finance Law provides that anyone who has furnished labor or material
  • To so calculate this date, it relies on a combination of the final payment provision ("when ct, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration").
  • The language -- "date on which final payment under the claimant's subcontract became due" --
  • The Commission suggested that an action upon the bond be commenced within one year after the
  • Windsor itself was asserting that final payment was due, despite the fact that the final
  •    |