Curtiss-Manes-Schulte, Inc. v. Safeco Insurance Company

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED) [4364860] [15-2217]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2217
___________________________
Curtiss-Manes-Schulte, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Safeco Insurance Company of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: January 22, 2016
Filed: February 9, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Curtiss-Manes-Schulte, Inc. appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of
summary judgment in its diversity action. Upon de novo review of the summary
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 15-2217

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Entry ID: 4364860

judgment record and the district court’s interpretation of the construction performance
bond and subcontract, see Bremer Bank v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 601 F.3d 824,
829 (8th Cir. 2010), and careful consideration of Curtiss-Manes-Schulte, Inc.’s
arguments for reversal,2 we conclude that summary judgment was warranted.
Specifically, we agree with the district court that because the record showed the
default-declaration requirement in the performance bond was not met, Safeco
Insurance Company of America’s obligations under the bond were not triggered. See
Miller-Stauch Constr. Co. v. Williams-Bungart Elec., Inc., 959 S.W. 2d 490, 494
(Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (under performance bond where subcontractor is principal and
general contractor is obligee, surety has option of formally taking over project and
contract for its completion, or allowing project to be defaulted and letting general
contractor complete or contract for completion of project, in which case surety is
responsible for costs in excess of contract price). The judgment of the district court
is affirmed.
______________________________

2

We decline to consider matters raised for the first time on appeal as a basis for
reversal. See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Robinson Outdoors, Inc., 700 F.3d 1172, 1175-76
(8th Cir. 2012).
-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2217

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Entry ID: 4364860