Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03006/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Ucited Sttte$ Cwn of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

L & M ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY 

COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

APR 2 1~SO 

> &OBERT L. HOECKER 

~ Clerk 

) 

) No. 88-3006 

) (D.C. No. 87-C-1435) 

) ( D. Colo. ) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, JONES,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff-appellant appeals the district court's order of 

November 25, 1988, entering summary judgment against plaintiff on 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-3006 Document: 01019967086 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 1 
all its claims. Plaintiff, a contractor, commenced the underlying 

action against defendant-appellee for damages suffered as a result 

of defendant's refusal to issue payment and performance bonds on a 

public project on which plaintiff was the low bidder. 

Plaintiff alleged four claims for relief in its complaint: 

breach of express contract; breach of implied contract; tortious 

interference with contractual relations; and tortious or bad faith 

refusal to issue payment and performance bonds. In response to 

defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff also alleged a 

claim based on promissory estoppel, to which defendant replied. 

On appeal, plaintiff raises a few arguments that were not 

raised below. We will not consider such arguments. See Gillihan 

v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 1989). Likewise, we 

will not consider those documents submitted by the parties in 

addenda to their appellate briefs that were not part of the record 

before the district court. See Fleming v. Gulf Oil Corp., 547 

F.2d 908, 911 (10th Cir. 1977). 

The district court determined that the language of the 

general indemnity agreement executed by the parties was 

unambiguous and that it controlled plaintiff's claims. The court 

held that pursuant to the parties' express agreement, defendant 

could refuse to issue the payment and performance bonds on the 

project at issue without incurring any liability. In light of 

this agreement, the court concluded that plaintiff's various 

claims must fail. 

We review an order granting or denying summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same standards as the district court. Osgood 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-3006 Document: 01019967086 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 2 
; 

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 

1988). Based upon our review of the record on appeal, 1 the 

parties' briefs, and the pertinent law, we conclude that the 

district court correctly entered 

plaintiff on all its claims. 

summary judgment against 

Therefore, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

1 Pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 11.1.1, the court has supplemented 

the record on appeal, sua sponte, with the following documents: 

defendant's brief in support of motion for summary judgment with 

attachments (filed 6/1/88); defendant's submittal of deposition 

testimony to support motion for summary judgment with attachments 

(filed 7/14/88); plaintiff's response and brief in opposition to 

defendant's motion for summary judgment with attachments (filed 

7/15/88); and defendant's reply brief in support of motion for 

summary judgment with attachments (filed 8/22/88). 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-3006 Document: 01019967086 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 3