United States: Point Of Interest: Sixth Circuit Complicates Sureties' Duty Of "Good Faith"

Last Updated: November 17 2016
Article by Robert D. Helfand

A hefty body of law declares that "suretyship is not insurance," and so that sureties are not subject to claims for the tort of insurance bad faith. E.g., Upper Pottsgrove Township v. Internat'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 976 F.Supp.2d 598 (E.D. Pa. 2013). But sureties often exercise the same rights as liability insurers—including the right to settle their customers' claims without consent. Courts are divided about whether these similar rights impose similar duties. Last week, in Great American Ins. Co. v. E.L. Bailey & Co., No. 15-2149 (6th Cir., Nov. 7, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit described the duties of a settling surety under Michigan law in terms that are hard to distinguish from the duty owed by an insurer. The court found that the duty had not been breached, but it might nevertheless have opened a door for future claims.

Sureties Are Special

A surety contract typically creates a three-sided relationship among (i) the purchaser of the bond (the "principal"), (ii) the surety that issues it and (iii) an "obligee." The principal and the obligee are generally parties to a separate transaction or series of transactions, and the principal pays the surety for a promise to pay the obligee, in the event that the principal fails to satisfy its own obligations.

In some ways, these relationships resemble those established under a liability insurance policy—not least because surety bonds are issued by insurance companies. For example, both a surety and an insurer can, in some circumstances, settle a claim against their customer without that customer's consent. But there are also important differences. Unlike a liability insurer, a surety usually retains the right to indemnification from the principal for the payments it makes on the principal's behalf. The surety may also demand that the principal secure its indemnity obligation with some form of collateral. Partly as a result of these differences, a surety sometimes has the right to settle claims that its customer asserts against third parties. That was the right which the surety exercised in E.L. Bailey.

Other aspects of the surety contract resemble first-party insurance. As the Sixth Circuit observed in E.L. Bailey,

It is the obligee of a surety, not the principal, who is analogous to the insured of an insurer."

Thus, despite "the usual view, grounded in commercial practice, that suretyship is not insurance," Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 (1962), many courts have held that a surety owes a duty of good faith to an obligee. E.g., Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v. Brighton School Dist. 27J, 940 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1997) ("A special relationship exists between a commercial surety and an obligee that is nearly identical to that involving an insurer and an insured"); Loyal Order of Moose, Lodge 1392 v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 797 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1990) ("the relationship of a surety to its obligee ... is ... analogous to that of an insurer to its insured"); Dodge v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 161 Ariz. 344 (1989) ("As insurers, sureties have the same duty to act in good faith that we recognized in [cases establishing the tort of insurance bad faith]").

What About The Principal?

There is no consensus, however, as to whether such a duty also extends to the principal. Some jurisdictions hold that a surety owes the same duty to both the principal and the obligee. E.g., Bd. of Directors of the Assoc. of Apartment Owners of the Discovery Bay Condominium v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 77 Hawai'i 358 (1994) ("the surety owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to both the principal and the obligee on the bond"). Some hold that it owes no duty to either party. E.g., Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc. 964 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. 1998).

Many others adopt a middle position, in which the surety owes some duty to the principal, but one which is based on the contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing, rather than the distinctive rules governing insurance bad faith. In the context of liability insurance, "bad faith" can arise in the absence of dishonesty or malice: an insurer acts in bad faith if it fails to place its insured's interests on an "equal footing" with its own. E.g., Greenidge v. Allstate Ins. Co., 446 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006); Allen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 656 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1981). A surety's contractual duty of good faith, on the other hand, is breached only by actions that have an "improper motive" or "dishonest purpose." PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede and Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279 (2004).

The differences between the insurance relationship and that of a surety and principal support this distinction, because the latter relationship cedes far less authority to the party that issued the relevant contract. A liability insurer is solely responsible for a claim against its insured up to the policy's limits. It puts its interests ahead of those of the insured if it unreasonably refuses to settle a claim within those limits—because its refusal forces the insured to choose between assuming responsibility for the settlement or exposing itself to an excess judgment.

Unlike an insured defendant, the principal under a surety bond is ultimately responsible for the settlement's entire cost; it has agreed to indemnify the insurer for any payments made on its behalf. It can settle claims without the surety's permission, and without losing the benefit of the surety contract. Moreover, it has a greater incentive than an insured has to drive a hard bargain.

The Tangle In Michigan

In September 2009, E.L. Bailey & Co. contracted with the State of Michigan to serve as general contractor for the construction of a prison kitchen at the Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti. Under a pre-existing surety agreement between Bailey and Great American Insurance Company, the insurer issued a performance bond, guaranteeing Bailey's obligations to the state, and a payment bond, which guaranteed Bailey's obligations to subcontractors and suppliers.

The surety agreement required Bailey to indemnify Great American for payments it made under the bonds—and also to provide collateral for that obligation on demand, in an amount determined by the surety. It also contained an assignment to Great American of all of Bailey's rights "growing in any manner out of" its contracts with the state and the subcontractors, in the event of a claim alleging that the contracts had been breached. It further provided that the surety had the right to settle any claim for breach of those contracts.

Eventually, Bailey found itself in a dispute with both the state and its subcontractors. Bailey and the state sued each other in a Michigan state court over delays in the completion of the prison project, for which the state claimed a right to exact liquidated damages (the "Michigan Suit"). The court sent the parties to mediation, and the mediator recommended a settlement, in which the state would pay Bailey $220,000. The state rejected that proposal.

Meanwhile, in Washtenaw County, some of Bailey's subcontractors brought a separate action against Bailey and Great American under the payment bond (the "Subcontractors' Suit"). In connection with that claim, the surety exercised its right to demand that Bailey provide $1.4 million in collateral, then it reduced its demand to $650,000. Although Bailey did not comply, Great American settled the Subcontractors' Suit at a total cost (including expenses and attorneys' fees) of more than $900,000. The surety then brought a new action against Bailey, in federal court, for breach of the surety agreement (the "Surety Suit").

Following the state's rejection of the mediator's proposed settlement in the Michigan Suit, the two parties were directed to participate in a second round of alternative dispute resolution, through a process called "facilitation." Because Bailey had failed to post collateral for the settlement of the Subcontractors' Suit, however, Great American still had control over all aspects of this action. One day before the facilitation was to take place, on September 11, 2013, Great American informed Bailey that it had agreed to settle the Michigan Suit for a payment by the state of $358,000—over 50% more than what the mediator had recommended. Bailey alleged that it had received no prior notice that the surety was negotiating with the state. It attended the facilitation, but the state did not show up.

In December 2014, Great American amended the complaint in the Surety Suit, adding a claim for declaratory judgment. The surety sought a declaration that it had had a right to settle Bailey's claim against the state in the Michigan Suit. The surety later moved for summary judgment on that claim, and, in opposition to that motion, Bailey argued that the claim had been settled in bad faith. The district court granted the surety's motion, and Bailey appealed.

Let Us Dare To Do Our Duty As We Understand It

On appeal, Bailey argued (and Great American conceded) that the surety owed a duty under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that was implied into the surety contract under Michigan law. Bailey contended, however, that this contractual duty was essentially the same one an insurer would owe. In support of that argument, it cited a case involving alleged bad faith settlement by an insurer: Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 393 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. 1986).

The Sixth Circuit questioned whether that case provided the rule of decision, noting that "insurance is not identical to suretyship." Yet it appeared to accept Bailey's definition of "bad faith." It noted that Commercial Union did not "deviate from the definitions" of bad faith that had been used in other contexts. While stating that "honest errors of judgment are not sufficient to establish bad faith," the court also found:

'[T]here can be bad faith without actual dishonesty or fraud,' such as when 'the insurer is motivated by selfish purpose or by a desire to protect its own interests at the expense of its insured's interest ... .'"

In other words, the court found that a surety can breach its duty to a principal in the absence of the "dishonest motive" or "improper purpose" required by cases such as PSE Consulting, supra. It also appeared to accept Bailey's argument that a surety's "bad faith" could consist of a "failure to investigate" Michigan law governing liquidated damages provisions.

Phew!

Because a principal's interest in claims that have been asserted against it is different from those of an insured defendant, there are—as noted above—good reasons that a surety settling those claims should not have to put a principal's interests on an equal footing with its own. But because Bailey involved the settlement of a claim that had been asserted by a principal, these reasons were not addressed. The court held that Great American had not breached the duty it had described, because it found that Great American and Bailey "share[d] an interest in securing the highest settlement possible from the State."

Even if [Great American] misunderstood Michigan law [relating to liquidated damages], leading it to miscalculate its liability and accept a lower settlement, 'honest errors of judgment are not sufficient to establish bad faith.'"

It is not clear, however, that this ruling would always protect a surety that settles a principal's affirmative claim. A case might arise in which legitimate business interests make early settlement more important for the surety than for the principal. In that case, the analysis in Bailey suggests (without deciding the issue) that the surety might be required to hold out for a larger payout.

As for settlement of claims against a principal, Bailey suggests, at a minimum, that principals should be kept fully apprised of every settlement opportunity.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions