From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Diamond Construction, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Apr 18, 1984
582 F. Supp. 886 (D. Mass. 1984)

Opinion

Civ. A. No. 82-3331-C.

April 18, 1984.

Michael H. Cohen, Rudolph, Andrews Kroner, Georgetown, Mass., for plaintiff.

John W. Fieldsteel, Withington, Cross, Park Groden, Boston, Mass., for Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.


MEMORANDUM


This is a civil action brought under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270a et seq. by Kane of New England, Inc. (Kane) against Diamond Construction, Inc. (Diamond) and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna).

This Court filed a memorandum on March 5, 1984 setting out its ruling on Aetna's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. Aetna was surety on the performance and payment bond issued by it to Diamond, the general contractor on a job at Pease Air Force Base at Newington, New Hampshire.

In the March 5, 1984 memorandum this Court noted that Kane claimed Aetna was estopped from raising the defense of the statute of limitations. I also ruled that there were issues of fact between the parties as to what representations Aetna made to Kane and as to whether Kane in fact relied on them to its detriment.

A hearing to resolve these factual issues was begun on March 27 and concluded on April 18, 1984. Kane called as witnesses Robert Prescott, a representative of Pease Air Force Base; Brian L. Hassig, President of Kane; and Robert A. Hotchkiss, a senior claims representative of Aetna.

After hearing I find that plaintiff has failed to prove that any representation was made by, or on behalf of, Aetna to the effect that Aetna would pay Kane. Plaintiff did not prove that Aetna made any request to Kane to withhold the filing of a lawsuit nor did plaintiff prove that Aetna did anything to cause plaintiff not to file suit timely. On the contrary, I find that the only representations made to plaintiff by Aetna were that 1) Aetna would not pay Kane because Aetna's principal asserted to Aetna that Kane's work was defective and incomplete, and 2) that Aetna would not pay Kane because Aetna had been told by Diamond that Diamond "would resolve that matter" (Kane's claim) itself.

I find that there is no factual basis for any reasonable reliance by Kane on anything said or done by Aetna or its representatives and I rule there is no basis for applying herein the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

I, accordingly, rule that Count I of the complaint is barred by the one year statute of limitations and should be dismissed.

Order accordingly.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Diamond Construction, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Apr 18, 1984
582 F. Supp. 886 (D. Mass. 1984)
Case details for

U.S. v. Diamond Construction, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America for the Use of KANE OF NEW ENGLAND, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Apr 18, 1984

Citations

582 F. Supp. 886 (D. Mass. 1984)

Citing Cases

Yor-Wic Constr. Co. v. Eng'g Design Techs., Inc.

See, e.g., U.S. for Use of Witt v. JP, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 480, 481 (D. Alaska 1987) ("[E]stoppel does not…

United States ex rel. Liberty Mech. Servs., Inc. v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co.

And, while it does not appear that the First Circuit has issued any holding on the matter, in recent years…