Travelers Indem. Co. v. J. S. Ramstad Const. Co.

118 F. Supp. 423, 14 Alaska 523, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4520
CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedFebruary 5, 1954
DocketNo. A-8860
StatusPublished

This text of 118 F. Supp. 423 (Travelers Indem. Co. v. J. S. Ramstad Const. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Travelers Indem. Co. v. J. S. Ramstad Const. Co., 118 F. Supp. 423, 14 Alaska 523, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4520 (D. Alaska 1954).

Opinion

FOLTA, District Judge.

Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. and Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., a corporation, entered into a joint adventure (hereinafter referred to as M-K) for the completion of a contract with the United States. M-K, as prime contractor, entered into what are termed the “Outside Utilities” and the “Railroad” subcontracts with J. S. Ramstad Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Ramstad), to secure the performance of which, bonds in the sum of $618,550 and $318,000, subject to the usual conditions, were furnished by plaintiff Travelers Indemnity Co. and defendant General Casualty Co., respectively (hereinafter referred to as Travelers and General). On several occasions in March and May, 1952, M-K notified Ramstad and Travelers that Ramstad’s performance of these subcontracts was unsatisfactory and demanded permission to take over both jobs to avoid substantial loss. This request, however, was denied on May 14, 1952. After Ramstad’s failure to meet a payroll of $34,500 and [425]*425M-K’s notification to Ramstad and the surety of its election to do so, M-K undertook the completion of the subcontracts on May 18, 1952. On June 16, 1953 M-K submitted a statement of indebtedness due from Ramstad and the surety on account of the subcontracts, and demanded payment. Of the aggregate amount of $657,345.57, M-K believes that $639,120.89 is allocable to the Outside Utilities and $18,224.68 to the Railroad subcontracts. While these formal demands were being made against Ramstad and the surety, Travelers commenced this action against M-K and Ramstad, alleging that Ramstad had certain claims, counterclaims and offsets against M-K which ought, in equity and good conscience, to be applied to diminish the amount claimed to be due to M-K by reason of default in the performance of the Outside Utilities subcontract, and praying that M-K and Ramstad be ordered to plead and set forth their claims; that the claims be adjudicated; that the claims of one against the other be offset and a balance struck, so that the plaintiff surety may be exonerated pro tanto.

It is obvious that the complaint is in reality a defensive pleading. Although it is framed as a bill in equity to determine the rights and liabilities of the several parties, its object appears to be declaratory relief.

Before answer, defendant M-K’s ex parte motion to implead General was allowed on August 10, 1953. Thereafter M-K filed a pleading of a rather startling nature, but hardly inappropriate in the circumstances, entitled “Answer, Counterclaim and Cross-Complaint and a Further Answer, Counterclaim, Cross-Complaint and Third Party Complaint”. The tenor of this pleading is not defensive but rather one which serves to state claims against Travelers, Ramstad and' General.

Examination of these pleadings reveals that there are no substantial facts in issue. Travelers alleges that M-K breached the subcontracts by not allowing Ramstad to complete them. M-K contends that Ramstad breached the contracts by failing to meet the payroll; that Travelers and General refused to finance Ramstad to enable it to complete the subcontracts and that, as a consequence, M-K was obliged to take over the work at considerable expense to itself in order to prevent further losses. Aside from the issue of liability, raised by Travelers, the main bone of contention appears to be the allocation of items of damages between Travelers and General. On oral argument counsel for M-K stated that the main controversy concerns “what amounts are chargeable against Travelers or * * * against * * * and directed attention to exhibit “C”, consisting of a great many invoices of material and other services purchased or obtained by Ramstad during the performance of these two subcontracts from M-K. As to these items, counsel stated:

“We had no way of determining when he made those purchases whether he was purchasing the materials for the Railroad contract, which General was surety for, or for the' Outside Utilities Contract, for which Travelers was the surety. * * * When we prepared the claim we went through Exhibit ‘C’ * * * and we segregated those charges as nearly as we were able to from the information in our possession. * * * So we were faced with the question that we had a claim against Ramstad. We did not know and we do not know to this day exactly how much of it is a proper claim against Travelers under its bond and how much of it is a proper claim against General under its bond and they were so informed upon the demand made upon them for payment.” (Transcript, pp. 20-21.)

The foregoing resumé suffices to show that the difficulties encountered by M-K stem from the fact that actually its relationship to this controversy is that of plaintiff, while the relationship of Trav-

[426]*426elers, Ramstad and General is that of de- the present pleadings, may be diafendants. Their position, in the state of grammed as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank
314 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank
314 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Reese v. Fultz
96 F. Supp. 449 (D. Alaska, 1951)
Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Barkhausen
170 F.2d 481 (Seventh Circuit, 1948)
Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank
314 U.S. 714 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Ready Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States
314 U.S. 715 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Knaus Truck Lines, Inc. v. Mair
85 F. Supp. 101 (D. Minnesota, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 F. Supp. 423, 14 Alaska 523, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-indem-co-v-j-s-ramstad-const-co-akd-1954.