Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/32497640/gulf135
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:45:24+00:00

Document:
Movitz, of Boston, Massachusetts, orally, for the plaintiff.
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP, of Concord (Christopher H.M.
Carter on the brief and orally), for defendant AMSCO, Inc.
Inc., English Wood Associates, Inc., Sara L. Clark, William D.
Protection Act, RSA chapter 358-A. We affirm.
expenses it incurred related to the three bond claims.
filing suit and without Gulf making any payments under the bond.
to investigate and adjust bond claims.
with AMSCO's substandard performance on a construction project.
$60,000 for collateral, representing Brita's settlement demand.
Gulf for indemnity payments under the GAI.
of [their] opinions." Porter v. City of Manchester, 151 N.H.
unreasonable to the prejudice of [its] case." Id.
related to its claim about which AMSCO's expert would testify.
AMSCO's defense expert to testify at trial. See id.
decision is legally sound and supported by the evidence.
required AMSCO to indemnify Gulf only for "reasonable"
to discern the parties' intent at the time the contract was made.
Steel & Iron Works, Inc., 722 F.2d 1160, 1163 (4th Cir. 1983).
meaning that would be given to them by a reasonable person, N.H.
v. Graciano, 152 N.H. 119, 121 (2005).
disbursements of counsel," and for other enumerated expenses.
been objectively reasonable as well. Cf. Progressive N. Ins. Co.
subjective belief and that such belief be objectively sound).
Nowhere in the GAI does the phrase "good faith," "bad faith"
unreasonable. See Fallon Electric Co., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins.
costs were unreasonable to avoid payment under the GAI.
Id. We agree with this plain reading of the contract language.
address indemnity contract provisions that contain "reasonable"
for monies paid in "good faith"); Com'l Ins. Co. of Newark v.
Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Millis Roofing, 418 N.E.2d 645, 646 (Mass.
Employers' Ins. Co. v. Horton, 622 N.E.2d 283, 284 (Mass. App.
Co. v. Marman Develop. Corp., 198 N.Y.S.2d 375, 376 (Sup. Ct.
1960) (same regarding "good faith"); Fairfax County v.
Culbertson Constr. Co., 1987 WL 488767 *1 n.1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Nov.
other than legal expenses for case monitoring, were unreasonable.
Gulf to hire counsel where AMSCO had provided it with counsel.
Gulf challenges both rulings, and we address each in turn.
such expenses were administrative and housekeeping in nature.
(finding of fact upheld unless unsupported by the evidence).
covenants and conditions of this Agreement against [AMSCO]."
contracts, even broadly stated, do not extend a "blank check"
recovery provisions, such as the ones before us. See Sentry Ins.
Co. v. Davison Fuel & Dock Co., 396 N.E.2d 1071, 1074 (Ohio Ct.
and diligence of the attorney hired by the surety."
(Tenn. App. 1970)); see Jackson, 685 F.2d at 966 n.15 (same).
decision to retain separate legal counsel, see Perkins, 551 So.
2d at 210. Accordingly, the trial court's ruling stands.
loss adjustment costs on the Beacon and Panciocco matters.
expenses it had incurred in the Beacon and Panciocco matters."
basis for it to retain its own legal counsel.
Upon the happening of an Event of Default . . .
rights under paragraph 7 is dictated by the terms of paragraph 6.
payment of [the] disputed expenses" in the prior matters.
from propriety of hiring individual legal counsel).
legal expenses which are unreasonable or unnecessary.
Jackson, 685 F.2d at 966.
properly presented to the trial court on the record before us.
(arguments not adequately raised below not addressed on appeal).
adjustment expenses under the Beacon and Panciocco bonds.
GAI on the Beacon and Panciocco matters.
supported by the record. Estate of Younge v. Huysmans, 127 N.H.
both the record and the law.
of being 'illegal or clearly excessive'" under Rule 1.5.
trial court denied AMSCO's motion to amend as "untimely."
request to amend, we will not disturb the trial court's decision.
days from the return date except by leave of court).

References: v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.