Case Name: DOVER & CO v. UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE CO
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-02-25
Citations: 38 Mich. App. 727
Docket Number: Docket No. 11632
Parties: DOVER & CO v UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE CO
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Levin and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 38
Pages: 727–735

Head Matter:
DOVER & CO v UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE CO
Opinion of the Court
1. Guaranty — Surety—Notice of Claim — Conditions Precedent— Statutes.
Compliance with the statute requiring a subcontractor, who desires to recover on a surety bond, to give notice to the applicable state agency within 60 days after furnishing the last materials or, performing the last work is a condition precedent to recovery on the bond (MOLA 570.101, 570.102).
Concurrence by Levin, J.
2. Statutes — Notice of Claim — Purpose.
Notice of claim statutes are not aimed at forestalling litigation altogether by establishing an absolute time limit for the commencement of action, but rather mainly seek to provide a governmental authority with early warning so that it can assemble information in support of a defense on the merits while the evidentiary trail is still hot.
3. Statutes — Notice of Claim — Nonjurisdictional Defect.
The principle in tort cases that failure to comply with a statutory requirement concerning notice to a governmental entity is not jurisdictional and that noncompliance should not deprive a citizen of Ms day in court except possibly where the governmental entity can show that it has been prejudiced by noncompliance, should be extended to nontort cases.
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1-4] 50 Am Jur, Suretyship § 91.
i. Guaranty — Surety — Notice op Claim — Statutes — Delayed Notice.
A subcontractor which had earned a substantial sum of money by installing eight overhead doors m the state highway department’s maintenance ga/rage should not be denied recovery on the principal contractor’s performance bond even though the subcontractor failed to give notice of the general contractor’s default to the highway department within 60 days, as required by statute, where the surety did not claim that it was prejudiced by the subcontractor’s delaying in giving notice (MCLA 570.102).
Appeal from Montmorency, Philip J. Glennie', J.
Submitted Division 3 November 3, 1971 at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 11632.)
Decided February 25, 1972.
Complaint by Dover & Company against United Pacific Insurance Company to recover on a surety bond. Summary judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
John T. Garey, for plaintiff.
Cholette, Perkins & Buchanam (by Sherman H. Cone), for defendant.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Levin and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, P. J.
Plaintiff, a subcontractor, agreed to furnish labor and materials to the principal contractor in completing a construction contract with the State Highway Department. In ac cordance with state law the principal contractor obtained a surety bond from the defendant.
Plaintiff brought this suit against defendant-surety to recover the unpaid balance on the contract between plaintiff and its defaulting principal contractor. One of the controversies at the trial level concerned the effect of plaintiff's failure to serve notice upon the State Highway Department within a statutorily-required 60-day period.
MCLA § 570.102 (Stat Ann 1970 Eev § 26.322) provides:
"In the case of a subcontractor, he shall within 60 days after furnishing the last material or supplies or performing the last work covered by his subcontract, serve a written notice in duplicate upon the board of officers or agents contracting on behalf of the state , that he is a subcontractor for the doing of some part of such work and that he relies upon the security of the bond by this act required to be given by the principal contractor, and the said board of officers or agents shall within 10 days thereafter furnish a copy of such notice to the sureties for the principal contractor."
Nevertheless plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted on the following grounds set out by the trial judge:
"Defendant, a paid surety had timely notice of plaintiff's claim and defendant would suffer no injury or damage if held liable to the plaintiff because of the fact that the State of Michigan has retained funds under the prime contract with the Trapp Construction Company [the principal contractor] which would indemnify the defendant from any injury or loss." (Emphasis supplied.)
Plaintiff's evidence as to timely notice consisted of two letters. A letter dated August 23,1970 from plaintiff to defendant recited that in August of 1969 plaintiff had last given materials and or services on the contract. The second letter, dated November 20, 1969, and from the State Highway Department, notified plaintiff that it had received plaintiff's claim and had forwarded a copy to the defendant.
The Court in People, for use of Wheeling Corrugating Co v W L Thon Co, 307 Mich 273, 277 (1943) made compliance with the statutory notice provision "a condition precedent to recovery on the bond".
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion.
T. M. Burns, J., concurred.
MCLA § 570.101 (Stat Ann 1970 Eev § 26.321).