Opinion ID: 6260055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coverage of the Bond

Text: Having determined that it does not matter “whether or not the said material or labor enter into and become component parts of the work or improvement contemplated,” it is necessary to decide whether the costs incurred in repairing the undercarriage of the TC-12 tractor were properly within the scope of the surety’s obligations. In Commonwealth to use Walters Tire Service, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, 434 Pa. 235, 252 A. 2d 593 (1969), we reaffirmed the distinction enunciated by the Superior Court in Philadelphia School District v. B. A. Shrages Co., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 533, 4 A. 2d 558 (1939), aff’d per curiam, 336 Pa. 433, 9 A. 2d 900 (1939), where it was said that: “. . . there is a clear distinction between such material (gasoline, oil, form lumber and nails) and the purchase of equipment, appa/ratus and appliances which were not intended to go into or become a part of the improvement, or to be consumed or used up in the prosecution of the work, but which were intended as aids or appliances which the contractor would naturally be expected to furnish, and which he would take away with him on the completion of the work, to be used by him in like manner on subsequent contracts.” 134 Pa. Superior Ct. at 542, 4 A. 2d at 562 (Emphasis in original). We simply do not believe that permanent repairs on a multi-use piece of contracting equipment fall within the coverage of the bond. The record in this case gives ample support to our conclusion. The TC-12 tractor was in use for a total of 76 days within the five months after the repairs were completed, and only 18 of those days—twenty-three and six tenths per cent —were spent at the Wellsboro job. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice Pomeroy concurs in the result.