31 U.S.C. § 9309

Priority of sureties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar

When a person required to provide a surety bond given to the United States Government is insolvent or dies having assets insufficient to pay debts, the surety, or the executor, administrator, or assignee of the surety paying the Government the amount due under the bond—(1) has the same priority to amounts from the assets and estate of the person as are secured for the Government; and(2) personally may bring a civil action under the bond to recover amounts paid under the bond.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1049.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
9309	31:193.	R.S. § 3468.

In the section, before clause (1), the words “person required to provide a surety bond” are substituted for “principal in any bond” for clarity and consistency. The words “dies having assets insufficient to pay debts” are substituted for “whenever, such principal being deceased, his estate and effects which come to the hands of his executor, administrator, or assignee, are insufficient for the payment of his debts” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “and, in either of such cases”, “on the bond”, and “such surety, his executor, administrator, or assignee” are omitted as unnecessary. Clause (1) is substituted for “shall have the like priority for the recovery and receipt of the moneys out of the estate and effects of such insolvent or deceased principal as is secured to the United States” to eliminate unnecessary words and for clarity. In clause (2), the words “and maintain” are omitted as surplus. The words “civil action” are substituted for “suit” for consistency. The words “in law or equity” are omitted as surplus.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Palm Energy Grp., LLC v. Greenwich Ins. (In re Tri-Union Dev. Corp.), 479 B.R. 425 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Palm Energy Grp., LLC v. Greenwich Ins. (In re Tri-Union Dev. Corp.), 479 B.R. 425 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2012). · cites it 2× “The Court held that under 31 U.S.C. § 9309 , Greenwich was subrogated only to the claim and priority of BOEM.”

In Re Tri-Union Dev. Corp., 314 B.R. 611 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2004). “At oral argument and in its briefs, counsel for Greenwich argued that 31 U.S.C. § 9309 14 subrogates the Respondents to the police power of the MMS.”

Lexon Ins. v. Chevron U.S.A. (5th Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “A magistrate judge recommended entry of summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Lexon was not entitled to reimbursement based on subrogation because (1) Louisiana does not recognize equitable subrogation; (2) Lexon, as surety of the principal obligor, has no right to legal…”

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.