Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02523/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02523-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 1 51989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER . HYDRO CONDUIT CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICAN-FIRST TITLE AND TRUST, 

COMPANY, 

Defendant, 

HUDIBURG INVESTMENTS, INC., 

Defendant, CrossClaimant-Appellant 

v. 

WOOD & SONS PAVING, INC.; THE OHIO 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants, Cross-Claim 

Defendants-Appellees, 

MALES BROTHERS PAVING, INC., 

Defendant and Cross-Claim 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk 

No. 87-2523 

(D.C. No. 82-1412-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

* 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: 87-2523 Document: 010110024621 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 1 
1 

Before MCKAY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and JENKINS, Chief 

Judge.* 

*Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins, Chief Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

This is an action involving the claim of a developer, 

Hudiburg Investments, Inc., against a general contractor, Wood & 

Sons Paving, Inc., and the general contractor's surety, the Ohio 

Casualty Insurance Company, under a labor and material payment 

bond relating to the construction of a concrete road and storm 

sewer. The action reaches this court for the second time on 

appeal. 

In the first action, the Hydro Conduit Corporation, a 

materialman on the construction project, brought a claim against 

the defendants 1 for the value of certain concrete piping used in 

the project, but for which it never received payment. The 

defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court 

granted. On appeal to this court, we affirmed the grant of 

summary judgment as to Wood & Sons, Males Brothers and Ohio 

Casualty, but reversed as to defendants American-First and 

Hudiburg. See Hydro Co nduit Corp. v. American-First Title & Trust 

Co., 808 F.2d 712 (1 0t h Cir. 1986). Pursuant to our disposition 

of that appeal, the district court entered judgment in favor of 

1 The defendants in this action were Hudiburg, the American-First 

Title and Trust Company (Hudiburg's surety), Wood & Sons, Ohio 

Casualty, Males Brothers Paving, Inc. (a subcontractor), and Lynch 

Construction, Inc. (also a subcontractor). Lynch was subsequently 

dismissed from the action. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2523 Document: 010110024621 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 2 
Hydro Conduit and against Hudiburg and American-First in the 

amocint of $25,627.43 plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees. 

On February 27, 1987, Hudiburg renewed the cross-claim which 

it had filed in the initial action by Hydro Conduit. 2 In this 

cross-claim, Hudiburg alleged that Wood & Sons, Males Brothers and 

Ohio Casualty were liable to it for the amount of the judgment 

awarded to Hydro Conduit in the initial action. The cross-claim 

defendants moved for summary judgment, and the district court 

granted this motion. Hudiburg now appeals, arguing that, as a 

matter of law, it was entitled to recover from Wood & Sons and 

Ohio Casualty the amounts it paid to Hydro Conduit. 3 We affirm. 

The sole question in this appeal is whether Hudiburg, as 

obligee of a labor and material payment bond executed by Wood & 

Sons, as principal, and Ohio Casualty, as surety, is entitled to 

indemnification for the sums it paid Hydro Conduit to cover the 

cost of certain pipe used in Hudiburg's development project. 

Hudiburg's argument i s premised on three theories. First, 

Hudiburg contends that Wood & Sons impliedly agreed to indemnify 

Hudiburg by virtue of certain language in its contract with Wood & 

Sons for the construction of a concrete street and storm sewer, 

which contract was incorporated by reference into the labor and 

material payment bond. Second, Hudiburg argues that it may 

2 Hudiburg's cross-claim was originally dismissed as moot in the 

district court's order granting summary judgment against Hydro 

Conduit. Upon this court's decision granting summary judgment for 

Hydro Conduit against Hudiburg and American-First, the district 

court permitted Hudiburg to amend and reassert its cross-claim 

against the remaining defendants. 

3 Hudiburg does not contest the grant of summary judgment in favor 

of Males Brothers in this appeal. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-2523 Document: 010110024621 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 3 
recover from the appellees as a claimant under the express terms 

of the labor and material payment bond. Third, Hudiburg asserts 

that Hydro Conduit was a claimant under the bond and that, as 

obligee of the bond, Hudiburg is entitled to reimbursement. We 

are not persuaded by these arguments. 

Hudiburg first suggests that certain language in the 

construction contract indicates that Wood & Sons intended to 

indemnify Hudiburg for any amounts paid to materialmen under 

Hudiburg's subdivision bond with the City of Oklahoma City. The 

contract language states, 

THIS CONTRACT CERTIFIES THAT [Wood & Sons Paving, Inc.] 

has inspected the site of the proposed work and has full 

knowledge of the extent and character of the work 

involved, construction difficulties that may be 

encounted [sic), materials necessary for construction, 

class and type of excavation and all other factors 

affecting or which may be affected by the specified work 

and is familiar with ordinances and regulations 

applicable to this district ... 

(Emphasis added). Hudiburg asserts that the emphasized language 

demonstrates that Wood & Sons was familiar with the laws 

applicable to the development project, among them the Oklahoma 

statute under which Hudiburg was required to post the _subdivision 

bond and under which Hydro Conduit recovered damages. See Okla. 

Stat. tit. 11, § 47-114 (1981). Hudiburg claims that Wood & Sons 

thereby recognized that it would be required to indemnify Hudiburg 

for any payments Hudiburg made to Hydro Conduit or other 

materialmen under the subdivision bond. 

We reject this argument as contrary to the plain meaning of 

the language in question, especially when read in the context of 

the paragraph from which it was taken. When a written contract is 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-2523 Document: 010110024621 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 4 
. . 

by its terms clear and unambiguous, and appears to cover the 

entire subject matter of the contract, we will not import 

additional terms unnecessary to give effect to the expressed terms 

as written. Carnine v. Simon, 203 Okla. 234, 219 P.2d 1018, 

1019-20 (1950). This is particularly the case with respect to an 

obligation to indemnify. Language in a contract intended as an 

indemnification must be clear and definite, and the court will not 

imply such an obligation when it is not warranted by a reasonable 

interpretation of the contract language. Allied Hotels Co. v. H. 

& J. Constr. Co., 376 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir. 1967). 

Rather than implying an indemnification, it is more likely 

that this clause was intended to represent the contractor's 

acknowledgment of the scope of work involved in the construction 

of the road and storm sewer and its assurance that the project 

would be completed in compliance with applicable construction and 

building code requirements. Moreover, had the parties intended an 

indemnification, it would have been simple for them to have 

inserted appropriate language into the contract. See, ~ ... .:. ... 9 .... :._r 

Professional Constr. Consultants, Inc. v. State ex rel. Grimes, 

646 P.2d . 1262, 1269 (Okla. 1982)(contractor expressly agreed to 

provide completed project free from claims by materialmen and 

suppliers); Wiley Co. v. Home Indem. Co., 213 Or. 493, 326 P.2d 

123, 127 (1958)(contract incorporated all of general contractor's 

obligations into subcontractor's contract). Consequently, we find 

· no evidence to support a conclusion that 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-2523 Document: 010110024621 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 5 
\ 

Wood & Sons contractually agreed to indemnify Hudiburg simply by 

its certification that it was familiar with local ordinances and 

regulations. 

Hudiburg additionally argues that it should be entitled to 

·recover the amount of its judgment as a "claimant" under the terms 

of the labor and material payment bond. The bond defines a 

claimant as "one having a direct contract with the Principal or 

with a Subcontractor of the Principal for labor, material, or 

both, used or reasonably required for use in the performance of 

the Contract II Hudiburg asserts that it qualifies as a 

claimant under this definition because of its direct contract with 

Wood & Sons. Under this contract, however, Wood & Sons, not 

Hudiburg, agreed to furnish materials and perform labor for the 

construction of the road and storm sewer. Hudiburg therefore 

cannot be considered a claimant under the express terms of the 

bond. See Culligan Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 580 F.2d 251, 

254 (7th Cir. 1978); Cagle, Inc. v. Sammons, 198 Neb. 595, 254 

N.W.2d 398, 402 (1977); Hayle Floor Covering, Inc. v. First Minn. 

Constr. Co., 253 N.W.2d 809, 813 (Minn. 1977). 

Finally, Hudiburg contends that Hydro Conduit was a claimant 

under the labor and material payment bond and that Hudiburg, as 

obligee, is thereby entitled to indemnification. While it is true 

that, as obligee on the bond, Hudiburg may bring an action for 

recovery of any sums it paid a claimant, Hudiburg must first 

establish that Hydro Conduit was a claimant under the definition 

of that term as noted above. This court has already considered 

this issue and has determined, in accordance with the district 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-2523 Document: 010110024621 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 6 
I 

court's reasoning, that Hydro Conduit was not a claimant under the 

bond. See Hydro Conduit Corp. v. American-First Title & Trust 

Co., 808 F.2d . at 716 (Opinion on Rehearing). 

not addres~ Hudiburg's arguments on this point . 

We therefore need 

. Since we hold that Wood & Sons is not liable to Hudiburg 

under the labor and materials payment bond, it follows that Ohio 

Casualty, as surety on the bond is likewise without liability. 

Smith v. Sinclair, 424 F. Supp. 1108, 1115 (W.D. Okla. 1976). 

Summary judgment in favor of Wood & Sons and Ohio Casualty was 

therefore proper. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

-7-

Appellate Case: 87-2523 Document: 010110024621 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 7