Court Opinion

ID: 9545617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:16:20.662639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:12.995617
License: Public Domain

*521Mowbray, J.,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent.
Respondent sued appellants, a contractor and his surety, for damages. Appellants retained the same counsel to defend the suit. Respondent requested that the contractor answer interrogatories. Almost a year passed, during which time the district court ordered the contractor to answer the interrogatories, extended the time to answer, and finally when the interrogatories remained unanswered, entered default judgment against appellants.
I would hold that a surety’s liability on a construction contract is generally coextensive with that of its principal where, as here, the surety had notice and an opportunity to defend the action and the judgment was not procured by fraud or collusion. See Kentucky Insurance Guarantee Association v. Dooley Construction, 732 S.W.2d 887 (Ky.Ct.App. 1987). Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the district court.