Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Gould
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
258 F.2d 883 (1958)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Abney contracted to build a $25,000 house for Gould (plaintiff). Trinity Universal Insurance Company (Trinity) (defendant) stood surety to guarantee Abney’s performance of the contract. The surety bond stipulated that Trinity needed to approve any change in the building plans that increased construction costs by more than 10 percent. The bond also stipulated when the work was to be completed, the method for paying for materials and labor, and other details. As the work proceeded, it deviated from these stipulations in several ways. For example, even after Abney walked off the job five months after missing the scheduled end date, at which point the house was only two-thirds complete, Gould urged him to keep working. The 67 changes that Abney and Gould made to the plans upped the house’s cost by over $38,000. Gould kept Trinity’s local agent apprised of these changes, and the agent passed the news to his superiors, although without discussing costs. The superiors simply told the agent to “go ahead” and “do the best” he could. After another builder completed the construction, Gould tried to recover the $38,000 from Trinity. When Trinity refused to pay, citing the bond’s excess-cost stipulation, Gould sued the surety. The trial court entered judgment for Gould. Trinity appealed the judgment to the Tenth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murrah, J.)
Dissent (Lewis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.