Did the Court of Appeals Unwittingly Increase the Risk of Surety Companies Issuing Payment Bonds in North Carolina

more+
less-

My recent musings about the Court of Appeals' December 6, 2011 Southern Seeding decision (my original blog post about the case is here; a longer treatment in this quarter's Change Order, published by the Construction Law Section of the North Carolina Bar Association, can be found here) neglect to address the opinion's implications for surety companies issuing payment bonds in North Carolina.

Those implications are profound and potentially far-reaching, and certainly worthy of discussion. So for those of you, like me, who have a keen interest in North Carolina suretyship law, you'll definitely want to keep reading.

[See full article for more information].

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Construction Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Matt Bouchard, Lewis & Roberts, P.L.L.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »