Multi-State Contracting Corp. v. Midwest Indem. Corp.

A surety was not responsible for a dispersing agent's diversion of funds held in escrow because the disbursement agreement did not establish a principal/agent relationship between the surety and the dispersing agent.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Multi-State Contracting Corporation sued Midwest Indemnity Corporation and National American Insurance Company, among other defendants, to recover monies which were held in escrow under the terms of a disbursement agreement between Multi-State and Contractors Risk Management Corporation CRMC. These funds were improperly diverted by CRMC for investment and were lost. Multi-State claims that CRMC acted as an agent for Midwest Indemnity and National American, which, as principals, are responsible for the loss of the escrowed funds. The trial court granted Midwest Indemnity’s and National American’s motions for summary judgment, and Multi-State appeals. We affirm because Multi-State cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 437 SE2d 832 1993.

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the court should construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions arising therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp., 187 Ga. App. 594, 596 370 SE2d 843 1988. Midwest Indemnity and National American, as defendants, may prevail “by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff’s case.” Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991. Our review of the record is de novo. Walker v. Virtual Packaging, 229 Ga. App. 124 493 SE2d 551 1997.

Multi-State Contracting Corp. v. Midwest Indem. Corp.

A surety was not responsible for a dispersing agent's diversion of funds held in escrow because the disbursement agreement did not establish a principal/agent relationship between the surety and the dispersing agent.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report