Castlepoint National Insurance Company v. Addicks Services, Inc. et al
Filing
22
OPINION on Judgment terminating 20 . (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
Castlepoint National Insurance
Company,
Plaintiff,
'Versus
Addicks Services, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
September 29, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Opinion on Judgment
I.
Introduction.
A surety issued a payment bond for a contractor after the contractor
agreed to indemnify it. The surety sued the contractor to recover expenses it
incurred paying claims on the bond. The contractor is liable for all the expenses
sought by the surety.
2.
Indemni9'.
Addicks Services, Inc., DBNHoldings, DavidB. Norris, PatriciaA. Norris,
C. Nelson Barfield, Jr., and Janice Barfield indemnified Castlepoint National
Insurance Company for a payment bond issued on Addicks's behalf. The bond
covered Addicks's work on storage ponds at the storage terminal of T arga
Downstream, L.e.e., in Mont Belvieu, Texas.
The indemnity covered losses and expenses relating to claims on the
bonds, including costs and attorneys' fees. If a claim was made and Castlepoint
asked for additional collateral, Addicks agreed to deposit it immediately. If
Addicks did not, Castlepoint obtained a right to its claims or causes of action
arising from the construction of the storage ponds.
The parties agreed that vouchers or other evidence of Castlepoint's
payments are prima facie evidence of Addicks's liability.
3.
Bond Claims.
Addicks's subcontractors made claims against the payment bonds because
it had not paid them. C astlepoint demanded additional collateral of $746,551.25
from Addicks. It did not pay the additional collateral.
Castlepoint investigated and settled the subcontractors' claims, paying
$676,014-27 to them and $110,506.59 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Addicks sued T arga for misrepresentations it had made to Addicks about
the project. Castlepoint assumed Addicks's position in the suit and settled its
claims against Targa for $326,674-61.
A court~appointed receiver in a separate case between Addicks and a
supplier demanded the T arga settlement funds to satisfy an unrelated
outstanding judgment against Addicks. Castlepoint settled with the receiver,
paying $50,000 to the receiver and $11,693.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.
4.
Application.
Castlepoint has paid $848,214-36 on the bond. Under the indemnity,
this is prima facie evidence of Addicks' s liability.
Addicks says that Castlepoint should not have paid $61,693.50 - the
amount of the settlement with the receiver plus attorneys' fees and costs because the receiver's claims were not related to the bond.
By virtue of Addicks's refusal to pay additional collateral after the
subcontractors brought their claims, Castelpoint obtained a right to Addicks's
lawsuit against T arga. The receiver tried to take the settlement. Castlepoint's
settlement of the receiver's claim, therefore, was related to the bond.
Addicks does not genuinely dispute Castlepoint's payment of
$ 848,2 14-36 on the bond or its obligation to indemnify Castlepoint. Castlepoint
has already received $326,674.61 from the Targa settlement. Castlepoint will
take $521,539.75 from Addicks.
5.
Attornrys' Fees.
Castlepoint is entitled to the reasonable attorneys' fees it spent on this
suit. In determining whether fees are reasonable the court looks to the local
market and considers the: (a) required time and skill; (b) attorneys' burdens; (c)
customary fee; (d) sge of the demand and award; (e) time constraints; (D
relationship with the client; (g) attorneys' quality; and
(h) whether the fee is
fixed or contingent.
Castlepoint says that it spent $45,294 in attorneys' fees in this suit. It
attaches testimony of an attorney who worked on the case listing the work he
and other attorneys at his firm did, explaining the rates that attorneys at his firm
charge, and swearing that the amount claimed is reasonable given the factors.
Addicks says his testimony is inadequate because it does not specify the
amount of time each attorney spent on each task and when they worked. It says
it cannot contest the reasonableness of Castlepoint' s fees without more specific
information.
From the information provided, using simple math, Addicks could
conclude that attorneys who bill between $r45 and $345 per hour spent
between one hundred and three hundred hours talking to the client and
opposing counsel, appearing at four pretrial conferences, reviewing client files,
and writing correspondence, pleadings, and motions.
Addicks does not genuinely dispute the reasonableness of Castlepoint's
attorneys' fees. Castlepoint will take $45,294 in attorney's fees from Addicks.
6.
Conclusion.
Castlepoint will take $566,833.75 from Addicks, David Noms, DBN
Holdings, Patricia Noms, C. Nelson Barfield']r., andJanice Barfield jointly and
severally.
Signed on September 28, 20r6, at Houston, Texas.
--""'"'"-~-~L-=yn=n=N=.~:.!.~~gh-JLes~~~:----
United States DistrictJudge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?