Hamill v. Maryland Cas. Co.
209 F.2d 338 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party who is an intended creditor beneficiary of a contract, and who reasonably relies on the performance of that contract, acquires a vested interest and may sue to enforce the contract upon its breach.
Facts:
- Gunnell Construction Company entered into a contract with Don Hamill, wherein Hamill agreed to advance 10% of the contract price on construction projects in exchange for 10% of the net profits.
- To secure a performance bond from Maryland Casualty Company for the La Mesa Elementary School project, Gunnell and Hamill executed a revised agreement.
- This revised agreement explicitly stated that Hamill's advanced funds would be repaid only after the project's completion and the payment of all bills and expenses.
- Relying on this revised agreement, Maryland Casualty Company issued the performance bond guaranteeing that Gunnell would pay all labor and material costs for the project.
- Hamill advanced the required funds to Gunnell for the La Mesa project.
- After the project was completed but before all bills for labor and materials were paid, Gunnell repaid the funds advanced by Hamill.
- Gunnell subsequently defaulted on payments to laborers and material suppliers, leaving thousands of dollars in unpaid bills.
Procedural Posture:
- Maryland Casualty Company paid outstanding claims on Gunnell Construction Company's performance bonds and sued Gunnell and Don Hamill in the U.S. District Court of New Mexico.
- The trial court rejected the theory that Hamill and Gunnell were partners but found that Maryland was a third-party beneficiary of the Gunnell-Hamill financing agreement for the La Mesa School project.
- The trial court found Hamill breached the agreement by accepting repayment from Gunnell before all project bills were paid.
- The trial court entered a judgment for Maryland against Hamill in the amount of $2,553.81.
- Don Hamill (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Maryland Casualty Company as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a surety company that issues a performance bond in reliance on a financing agreement between a contractor and a third party become a creditor beneficiary of that agreement, thereby gaining the right to sue the third party for a breach that causes the surety to suffer a loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Murrah, Circuit Judge
Yes. A surety company that issues a performance bond in reliance on a financing agreement becomes a third-party creditor beneficiary of that agreement, entitled to sue for its breach. Under New Mexico law, a third party may sue to enforce a contract in which they have a beneficial interest. The controlling factor is the intent to benefit the third person, which is determined by construing the contract in light of the surrounding circumstances. Here, Hamill's promise to keep his funds in the project until all bills were paid was an asset on which Maryland relied when issuing its bond. The performance of this promise would have satisfied Gunnell's duty to pay its laborers and materialmen. When Maryland, as surety, paid those bills, it became subrogated to their rights. Maryland is therefore a creditor beneficiary that acquired a vested interest in Hamill's promise upon its reliance, and it can sue Hamill for the breach of that promise.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal standing of sureties as third-party beneficiaries in construction financing agreements. It establishes that when a surety issues a bond in direct reliance on the terms of a separate financing contract, it acquires enforceable rights under that contract. The case broadens the liability of financiers, putting them on notice that their contractual promises to contractors can create duties to third parties like sureties, especially when the financing agreement is a prerequisite for securing bonding. This precedent obligates courts to look at the surrounding circumstances, not just the text of the contract, to determine if a third party was an intended beneficiary.
Unlock the full brief for Hamill v. Maryland Cas. Co.