5967225v1(63074.8)

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Scott F. Frerichs - 012715 

sfrerichs@jsslaw.com 

JENNINGS, STROUSS & SALMON, P.L.C. 

A Professional Limited Liability Company 

One East Washington Street 

Suite 1900 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2554 

Telephone: (602) 262-5911 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

American Contractors Indemnity 

Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LB Contracting, LLC; Peggy Bryant, 

Defendants.

No. 

COMPLAINT 

For its Complaint against Defendants LB Contracting, LLC (“LB 

Contracting”) and Peggy Bryant (“Bryant”) (collectively “Defendants”), Plaintiff 

American Contractors Indemnity Company (“ACIC”) alleges as follows: 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff ACIC is a California domiciled company authorized to do, and 

doing business as a surety in the state of Arizona. 

2. Defendant Peggy Bryant is a resident of Yavapai County, Arizona. 

3. Defendant LB contracting, LLC (“LB Contracting”) is an Arizona 

limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Prescott, Arizona. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE 

4. The amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars, 

exclusive of attorneys’ fees. 

5. Jurisdiction is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 as the 

parties are completely diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds 

Case 3:18-cv-08044-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 5
5967225v1(63074.8)

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

$75,000. 

6. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 

FACTS 

7. LB Contracting was awarded a construction contract from Yavapai 

County to construct a water line in the town of Ashfork (“Ashfork Contract”) for the 

stated contract price of $115,420. 

8. Because the Ashfork Contract was a public works job under the laws of 

State of Arizona, LB Contracting was required to provide payment and performance 

bonds in an amount equal to the contract price. 

9. LB Contracting requested that ACIC issue the statutorily required 

payment and performance bonds for the Ashfork Contract. 

10. ACIC issued payment and performance bonds, bond number 

1000971933, in the penal sum of $115,420, naming Yavapai County the bond 

obligee and LB Contracting the bond principal, with respect to the Ashfork Contract. 

11. Yavapai County accepted the payment and performance bonds issued 

by ACIC for the Ashfork Contract. 

12. LB Contracting was also awarded a contract by the Town of Prescott 

Valley regarding a high school sewer line-up project (“Sewer Contract”) for the 

stated contract price of $373,460. 

13. Because the Sewer Contract was a public works job under the laws of 

the State of Arizona, LB Contracting was required to post payment and performance 

bonds in an amount equal to the penal sum of the contract. 

14. LB Contracting requested that ACIC issue the statutorily required 

payment and performance bonds for the Sewer Contract. 

15. ACIC issued payment and performance bonds, bond number 

1000971924, in the penal sum of $373,460, naming LB Contracting the bond 

principal and the Town of Prescott Valley, the bond oblige, with respect to the Sewer 

Case 3:18-cv-08044-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 2 of 5
5967225v1(63074.8)

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Contract. 

16. The Town of Prescott Valley accepted the payment and performance 

bonds issued by ACIC for the Sewer Contract. 

17. As a prerequisite to issuing any bonds on behalf of LB Contracting, 

ACIC, as is standard in the surety business, ACIC required that LB Contracting 

execute a General Indemnity Agreement (“GIA”). 

18. In that GIA, LB Contracting agreed, amongst other things, to 

“indemnify and hold [ACIC] harmless from and against any and all demands, 

liabilities, losses, costs, damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses of whatever kind or 

nature, together with interest thereon at the maximum rate allowed by law, which 

arise by reason of, or in consequences of, the execution by [ACIC] of any Bond . . .”. 

19. Peggy Bryant signed the GIA in her individual capacity, agreeing to 

bind herself personally for the indemnification obligation to ACIC. 

20. On the payment bond ACIC issued for the Sewer Contract, ACIC 

received a claim from a company known as RDO Equipment alleging that LB 

Contracting failed to pay it all amounts due and owing for labor/materials/equipment 

provided to LB Contracting on the project. 

21. Following its investigation, ACIC determined the amount of $49,850 

was due, and made payment to RDO Equipment in the amount of $49,850 in order to 

resolve the claim. 

22. On the payment bond ACIC issued for the Ashfork Contract, ACIC 

received a claim from a company known as the Dana Kepner Company alleging that 

LB Contracting failed to pay it for all amounts due and owing for 

labor/materials/equipment provided to LB Contracting on that project. 

23. Following its investigation, ACIC determined the amount of 

$30,319.48 was due, and made payment to the Dana Kepner Company in the amount 

of $30,319.48 in order to resolve the claim. 

Case 3:18-cv-08044-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 3 of 5
5967225v1(63074.8)

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

COUNT I 

Express Contractual Indemnity 

24. ACIC incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 of this 

Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 

25. ACIC incurred direct losses of $80,169.48 arising out of claims made 

against the bonds it issued on behalf of LB Contracting. 

26. Pursuant to their contractual obligations under the GIA, LB Contracting 

and Peggy Bryant are liable to ACIC for the full amount of the losses, costs and 

expenses incurred. 

27. ACIC’s losses are liquidated and a sum certain, entitling it to 

prejudgment interest on all such amounts. 

28. ACIC has also incurred and will continue to incur losses in the form of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

29. The attorneys’ fees and costs incurred are substantive damages as 

defined in the GIA. 

WHEREFORE, ACIC requests the Court to enter Judgment in its favor and 

against Defendants, jointly and severally, for: 

A. Claim payments made in the amount of $80,169.48; 

B. Attorneys’ fees incurred and to be incurred; 

C. Prejudgment interest on all such amounts; 

D. Costs of suit incurred herein; 

E. Post judgment interest; 

F. Fees and costs incurred in collecting on any judgment; 

G. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate 

Case 3:18-cv-08044-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 4 of 5
5967225v1(63074.8)

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2018. 

JENNINGS, STROUSS & SALMON, P.L.C. 

By /s/ Scott Frerichs 

Scott F. Frerichs 

One East Washington Street, Ste. 1900 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2554 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:18-cv-08044-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 5 of 5