Court Opinion

ID: 9674779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:35:13.315777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.651248
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. In Charles W Anderson Co v Argonaut Ins Co, 62 Mich App 650; 233 NW2d 691 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 815 (1975), relied upon by the majority in the present case, I dissented because I disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that strict compliance with the notice requirement of MCL 129.207; MSA 5.2321(7) was necessary. Because the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in that case *746and has not addressed the issue, I adhere to the opinion that I expressed in my dissent:
"It is my considered opinion that under the present law, MCL 129.201 et seq.; MSA 5.2321(1) et seq., substantial compliance with the terms of the statute by a 'claimant not having a direct contractual relationship with the principal contractor’ is sufficient to allow the claimant to proceed against the payment bond for the amount due and owing for labor or materials furnished for the performance of the contract and that in the absence of some showing of prejudice a surety may not benefit by a subcontractor’s noncompliance with the statute.” Anderson, supra, 655.
The basis of my opinion is fully set forth in my dissent in Anderson, supra, 655-657, and need not be repeated here. Therefore, I would reverse the decision of the trial court.