If any bond is given to secure payment for work done or materials furnished on account
of the construction, erection, alteration, or reparation of any building, canal, turnpike,
railroad, or other improvement or on account of any contract between the owner or
lessee or tenant of the land on which the improvement is or shall be constructed,
erected, altered, or repaired and any other person, the bond shall enure to the benefit
of any person who does any work in the construction, erection, alteration, or reparation
thereof, or who furnishes any materials used for that purpose, and the person doing
the work or furnishing the materials may bring suit in his or her own name on the
bond against any party thereto, notwithstanding the fact that no notice of intention
under § 34-28-4 has been mailed or filed, and, further, notwithstanding the fact that he or she is
not a party to the bond or to the contract between the owner or lessee or tenant and
other person, and, further, notwithstanding the fact that he or she did not know of
or rely on the bond or give any notice to the surety on the bond, and further, notwithstanding
the fact that he or she did work or furnished materials for use on any subcontract,
mediate or immediate, to such contract between the owner or lessee or tenant and the
other person.
Notes of Decisions
Air Distrib. Corp. v. AIRPRO Mech. CO., 973 A.2d 537 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 15× “1956 §§ 37-12-1, 37-12-2, G.L. 1956 §§ 34-28-30, and 34-28-31. Final judgment was entered on November 2, 2007, and Hartford timely filed the instant appeal.”
Providence Elec. Co., Inc. v. Donatelli Bldg. Co., Inc., 356 A.2d 483 (R.I. 1976).
· cites it 13× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §§34-28-30 1 and 34-28-31. 2 The defendants contend that *343 the bond was furnished to the town as required by §37-13-13 3 and was therefore subject to the provisions of chapter 12 of title 37.”
Adp Marshall, Inc. v. Noresco, LLC, 710 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D.R.I. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Hydro-Chem 11, citing R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-28-30. The court held that, because Hydro-Chem established that Lumbermens issued a bond to secure payment for work performed on the Project, and HydroChem had performed and completed the work requested by Arden, HydroChem was entitled…”
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 99 v. United Pac. Ins., 573 A.2d 270 (R.I. 1990).
· cites it 8× “1956 (1984 Reenactment) § 34-28-30 has abrogated any notice requirement, held that “the plaintiff is estopped from making any claim on the basis of their lack of doing something when they had a clear obligation to do something.”
Extrusions Inc. v. Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins., 824 A.2d 439 (R.I. 2003).
· cites it 9× “Further, Win-Vent maintained, regardless of any limiting language in Berkshire’s contract with the local school authority, it was entitled to make a claim on the payment bond under G.L.1956 § 34-28-30. The motion justice ruled that even though the payment bond that National…”
Providence Elec. Co., Inc. v. Diso Corp., 440 A.2d 751 (R.I. 1981).
“In that case, which involved similar facts, this court stated that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy under General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 34-28-30 and was not required thereunder to comply with the notice provisions of § 37-12.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.