|Targeted News Service|
The Minnesota Appeals Court dismissed Safety Sign's payment bond claim because the subcontractor sent the notice to the general contractor's principal address, not the address listed on the payment bond, as required under
"The public policy implications of not granting review, the uncertainty that currently exists, and the troubling legal and equitable issues that would result if this Court does not clarify whether substantial compliance with notice requirements is sufficient to preserve a bond claim under the notice provisions of [the payment bond law] ... all support granting the current Petition for Review," ASA wrote. "There is no compelling legal or equitable reason why, given the remedial purposes of the statute, the doctrine of substantial compliance should not be extended to the Act."
Safety Signs subcontracted with
Safety Signs properly performed its scope of work without complaint, but was not paid after the city paid the contractor. Safety Signs sent its notice to the surety company,
Safety Signs commenced with the second phase of the project work, but again, was not paid for its work. In
The surety appealed, and the appeals court reversed the trial court decision, stating that strict compliance with the notice requirements of the bond statute was a condition precedent to a payment bond claim.
ASA reminded the
The appeals court's decision, ASA also noted, "would create an incentive for collusion between the surety and contractor to (as occurred here) list different notice addresses for the contractor in the subcontract and bond, and then refuse to accept certified mail service of claims.
"ASA is concerned about maintaining consistency and integrity in
If the court accepts the application, ASA would tap its
TNS CT21CT-121107-4097529 61ChengTacorda
|Copyright:||(c) 2012 Targeted News Service|