Case Name: NO FAULT TENNIS & TRACK, LLC v. A-1 ASPHALT PAVING AND REPAIR, INC., et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2005-03-29
Citations: 900 So. 2d 983
Docket Number: No. 04-CA-1297
Parties: NO FAULT TENNIS & TRACK, LLC v. A-1 ASPHALT PAVING AND REPAIR, INC., et al.
Judges: Panel composed of Judges EDWARD A. DUFRESNE, JR., THOMAS F. DALEY, and SUSAN M. CHEHARDY.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 900
Pages: 983–986

Head Matter:
NO FAULT TENNIS & TRACK, LLC v. A-1 ASPHALT PAVING AND REPAIR, INC., et al.
No. 04-CA-1297.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
March 29, 2005.
Michael K. Heltz, Gramercy, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
Maura Z. Pelleteri, David J. Krebs, Charles B. Long, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.
Panel composed of Judges EDWARD A. DUFRESNE, JR., THOMAS F. DALEY, and SUSAN M. CHEHARDY.

Opinion:
1 .EDWARD A. DUFRESNE, JR., Chief Judge.
This is an -appeal by the St. James Parish School Board, third-party plaintiff-appellant, from a judgment sustaining an exception of no right of action urged by St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co., third-party defendant-appellee, in this dispute over payment of a subcontractor for work done at two public schools. For the following reasons we affirm that judgment.
The basic facts are as follows. The School Board put out for bids the resurfacing of the athletic tracks at two schools. A-l Asphalt and Repair, Inc. was the successful bidder, and it subcontracted some of the work out to No Fault Tennis and Track, L.L.C. St. Paul issued both a performance bond and a labor and material payment bond for the job. No Fault filed the present suit against A-l for payment of an alleged outstanding balance for labor and materials of some $90,000. It also filed liens against the School Board, and named the Board as a defendant in conjunction with these liens.
13The School Board answered and filed a third-party demand against St. Paul on the bonds. Eventually, No Fault also named St. Paul as a defendant. St. Paul urged an exception of no right of action as to the Board's third-party demand, which was sustained. The Board now appeals.
Because the controversy here relates to payments allegedly due to No Fault for labor and materials, the 'performance bond written by St. Paul is not at issue. That bond provides that St. Paul would undertake completion of the work if A-l did not do so, but it further requires that the School Board first declare A-l to be in default and then notify St. Paul that the default had occurred, before St. Paul's obligations would arise. There is nothing in the record to show that these two conditions were met.
Instead, it is the labor and material payment bond that is involved here. Under La. R.S. 38:2241, payment bonds are statutory, i.e. the bond must contain all of the provisions set forth in the statute, and any provision in such a bond which does not comport with the statute is void as contrary to public policy. Section 2242 defines who may be a claimant pursuant to a statutory payment bond. That section provides that only parties who are owed money for providing labor and materials to the job in question are proper claimants. The public body (or owner) of the project is not a "claimant" under the statute, and therefore the School Board here has no right of action against St. Paul under the payment bond, and the exception was properly sustained. See Sharkey's Reef, Ltd. v. Polit, 96-499 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/15/97), 688 So.2d 67.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DALEY, J., dissents with reasons.