Subcontractor default insurance (“SDI”) — insurance that covers certain losses related to a subcontractor’s material breach of a subcontract — has been gaining in popularity over bonds among general contractors. However, for a number of reasons, sureties assert that bonds are better than SDI, despite the common complaint about bonds that sureties are slow to
Washington Supreme Court Affirms Brightwater Decision Regarding Application of Olympic Steamship to Sureties
On July 6, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court confirmed that the equitable rule announced in Olympic Steamship—providing for attorney fees where the insurer compels the insured to take legal action—applies to performance bond sureties on public projects.[1] In King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, the Court affirmed the trial court’s award of over $14 million in attorney fees and costs against sureties of a public works contract.[2]
In 2006, King County contracted with a joint venture of three construction companies to build the piping/conveyance system for the new Brightwater wastewater treatment project. The joint venture contractor submitted a performance bond from five surety companies. Under the contract, if the contractor was in default, the sureties were obligated to step in and remedy the default. When the project was delayed, King County declared the contractor in default and asked the sureties to cure. They refused, claiming that the contractor was not in default.
On Guard: A Look at Subcontractor Default Insurance
Whether you call it SDI or SubGuard, subcontractor default insurance is yet another consideration for public and private project owners as they look at protection from subcontractor default. But what exactly is this relatively new option and when is it most appropriate? In my recent article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I discuss
Five Questions an Owner Should Ask About Insurance and Bonds
Contractors often have limited liquid assets, so insurance and bonding are often the best resources available to an owner to protect against contractor default or defective work. However, not all policies and bonds are created equal, and owners should make sure these resources provide the security the owner needs. In my recent article for the
Lien Rights of Employee Benefit Plans Clarified in Washington
A question left open in Stoel Rives’ recent Washington lien law treatise relates to the lien rights of employee benefit plans. The rights granted in RCW 60.04.011(4) (where benefit plans are included in the definition of “furnishing labor”) were called into question by two Washington Supreme Court decisions barring employee benefit plans from pursuing lien-like
Surety Has “Sole and Absolute Discretion” to Settle Bond Claim in California
While surety bonds have always been required for most public projects, they are being used extensively in many large private construction projects by project owners to secure faithful performance (or payment via settlement) of the contract if the contractor defaults. But does the contractor have the same standing and rights against the Surety as an
Idaho Verifies That Priority Position Remains Relevant After Bond Posting
In a case of first impression in Idaho, the Supreme Court in American Bank v. Wadsworth Golf Construction Co. of Southwest, No. 39415 (Idaho Aug. 16, 2013) (slip op.), determined that priority of lien filings on a property remain subject to a lien priority analysis even after a statutory lien release bond is filed
The Increasing Importance of Performance Bonds
There are now 25 states in the U.S. that hold that construction defects are not an “occurrence” and are therefore not covered under commercial general liability policies insuring contractors. Couple this troubling statistic with the ever increasing number of policy exclusions and limitations, and we begin to realize that in many situations the contractor’s insurance policy is inadequate (or non-existent) protection against defects.
The importance of performance bonds as security to pay for construction defects is therefore growing. While some sureties who sell the bonds will tell you that bonds merely guarantee completion, and do not insure against latent defects, the language of the typical bond defies this position.
Bonds plainly state that they guarantee each and every obligation of the contractor under the contract. Those obligations usually include the duty to perform work according to the plans and specifications, the standard of care, and without defect or nonconformity. This author has not seen a bond that attempts to carve out construction defects from its coverage. And bonds do not have the host of exclusions or limited coverage grants that plague the value of insurance policies. By the same token, bonds are not perfect and owners should consider the following to get the most protection from a bond:
First, the bond duration should extend at least as long as the warranty period (typically one year from completion but sometimes longer) and for as many years thereafter as possible, up to the statute of repose period in the state in which the project is located. Because construction defects often appear years after completion, the bond duration is critical. You may pay more for a bond with a longer duration, but if the bond is needed, you should be paying less for the unreliable insurance carried by the contractor.
Bond. Performance Bond.
Performance bonds—insurance-like arrangements in which a surety (the bonding company) contractually agrees to pay for the performance of a principal (the contractor) to an obligee (the owner) in case the principal fails to perform the obligations of its contract—should be used more often in construction agreements to provide owners with a source of funds to cover defective work in a project.
Currently, owners typically require contractors to obtain insurance policies with the hope that such policies cover defects in the work they perform for the owner. Though owners are willing to spend a lot of money, time, and effort in obtaining these policies, insurers continue to make revisions to their policies to limit, and sometimes prevent, coverage for these defects.
Performance bonds may provide better protection to an owner. Typically, the bond provides funds to pay for repair of defective work that may not be covered by insurance as part of the bond’s guarantee of the faithful performance of the contract by the contractor.
Unlike insurance policies, performance bonds provide coverage only for the owner’s project—if an owner discovers a defect in the contractor’s work, the owner will not have to worry whether another owner’s claim against the contractor for another defective project will reduce the coverage available under the contractor’s bond. The performance bond’s recovery pool belongs to the owner for the specific project it is drafted to cover.