Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. B & B Paving, Inc.

United States District Court, D. North Dakota

January 22, 2018

The Cincinnati Insurance Company, an Ohio Corporation, Plaintiff,
B & B Paving, Inc. d/b/a B & B Dirtworks, Michael Baumgartner, Nancy Baumgartner, Defendants.


          Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge United States District Court

         The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) previously moved for summary judgment against B & B Paving, Inc., Michael Baumgartner, and Nancy Baumgartner (collectively “the Defendants”). (Doc. No. 31). In a previous order, the court granted that motion as to Cincinnati's breach of contract claim but denied the motion as to the amounts of damages Cincinnati sought to collect. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. B & B Paving, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-340, 2017 WL 42468565 at *6 (D.N.D. September 25, 2017). The court directed Cincinnati to provide supplemental briefing as to the amount of damages collectable under North Dakota law. That briefing, along with that from the Defendants, is now before the court. (Doc. Nos. 38, 39, 41).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Generally speaking, Cincinnati and the Defendants executed two surety bonds for various construction services to be provided by the Defendants. As is relevant to this case, those bonds are identical. Cincinnati and the Defendants also executed corresponding indemnity agreements, under which the Defendants agreed to indemnify Cincinnati “and hold it harmless from and against any and all liability, losses, costs, damages, attorneys' fees, disbursements and expenses of whatever kind or nature which the Surety may sustain or incur by reason or in consequence of having executed or procured the execution of the” Surety Bonds. (Doc. Nos. 1-1, 1-2). The Defendants executed these indemnity agreements jointly and severally. Cincinnati ultimately received and paid out claims under the bonds totaling $82, 064.95. (Doc. No. 33-1). Cincinnati also incurred $13, 985.70 in costs, expenses, and attorneys fees in discharging its obligations under the surety bonds and in prosecuting this breach of contract case under the indemnity agreements. In sum, Cincinnati sought judgment for $96.050.65, which was inclusive of the paid bond claims, attorneys' fees, and costs and expenses.

         In the court's previous order, the court granted Cincinnati's motion for summary judgment insofar as the Defendants breached the indemnity agreements for not indemnifying Cincinnati. The court further concluded Cincinnati was entitled to a judgment in the amount of $82, 064.95, which represented the amounts paid out under the bonds. The court, however, denied, without prejudice, Cincinnati's motion as to the remaining $13, 985.70 because Cincinnati had not properly itemized the expenses comprising that total and the court was unsure about whether North Dakota law allowed for the collection of that amount. The court directed Cincinnati to provide supplemental briefing and affidavits as to the itemization issue and the court's collectability concerns.


         The court has reviewed the supplemental itemized statement of loss submitted by Cincinnati. (Doc. No. 38-2). The statement consists of three categories of losses: (1) amounts paid out under the surety bonds; (2) investigation expenses; and (3) attorneys' fees.[1] In aggregate, Cincinnati seeks $97, 582.15, which is more than it sought in its previous motion for summary judgment and which presumably reflects further attorneys' fees incurred in this matter. As discussed above, the court has already concluded Cincinnati is entitled to $82, 064.95, which represents the amounts paid out under the surety bonds, so the court will not address Cincinnati's first category of loss any further. Thus, the court is left to consider the collectability of the balance of Cincinnati's requested amount.

         A. Investigative Expenses

         Cincinnati's second category of expenses, in its entirety, consists of a $27.00 charge characterized as an investigation expense. The Defendants have not made any serious effort to argue this charge does not fall within the category of losses collectable under the indemnity agreements, and such amounts likely do no fall under the invalidation dictated by N.D.C.C. § 28-26-04. See First Nat. Bank of Decorah v. Laughlin, 61 N.W. 473, 475 (N.D. 1894) (concluding “the fact that no charges for collection were mentioned in the statute, other than attorney's fees, shows inferentially that attorney's fees alone were in the mind of the legislature; and we are of the opinion that we would not be justified in concluding from that statute, or from any other, that expenses of collection aside from attorney's fees are against the policy of express law.”). Thus, the court concludes Cincinnati is entitled to additional damages in the amount $27.00.

         B. Attorneys' Fees

         Cincinnati's third category of expenses includes $15, 490.20 worth of attorneys' fees. The court previous denied Cincinnati's request for attorneys' fees based upon the potential application of N.D.C.C. § 28-26-04. That section provides:

Any provision contained in any note, bond, mortgage, security agreement, or other evidence of debt for the payment of an attorney's fee in case of default in payment or in proceedings had to collect such note, bond, or evidence of debt, or to foreclose such mortgage or security agreement, is against public policy and void.

         The court had concern about the collectability of Cincinnati's requested fees when reading N.D.C.C. § 28-26-04 with Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Anderson, 155 N.W.2d 728, 735-36 (N.D. 1968). In Hartford, a surety issued a construction bond to principals who also executed an indemnity agreement containing an attorneys' fees provision. After concluding the principals/indemnitors breached the indemnity agreement by not providing proper indemnification, the trial court taxed the indemnitors with attorneys' fees pursuant to the indemnity agreement. In considering that aspect of the case, the North Dakota Supreme Court stated:

Our study of this case has disclosed that the judgment includes attorney fees, and this is perhaps because the indemnity agreement so provides. It is our view, however, that the legislature intended, under N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-26-04, to prohibit a provision for the payment of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.