TRUSTEES OF OPERATING ENGIN V FEDERAL INSUR CO

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 HEALTH CARE PLAN, TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 PENSION FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 RETIREE BENEFIT FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 VACATION AND HOLIDAY FUND OF MICHIGAN, TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 JOINT APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 INDUSTRY ADVANCEMENT FUND, and TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 LABORMANAGEMENT FUND, UNPUBLISHED July 9, 1996 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 180037 LC No. 94-407148-CZ FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Before: Smolenski, P.J. and Holbrook, Jr. and F.D. Brouillette,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal as of right the grant of defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). We affirm. * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ Midwest Bridge Company (Midwest) entered into a contract with the Michigan Department of Transportation to perform work on certain roads located in Genesee County. -2­ Subsequently, Midwest entered into a subcontract with B & J Construction Company, whose employees were members of plaintiffs’ union. Pursuant to the public buildings and public works act, MCL 570.101 et seq.; MSA 26.321, et seq., Midwest was required to secure a bond for payment of subcontractors and for payment of materials and supplies furnished and used. Midwest secured the bond from defendant, Federal Insurance Company. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the union, B & J Construction Company was required to make contributions to plaintiffs for employee fringe benefits earned by employees who performed work for B & J Construction Company. Plaintiffs claim B & J Construction Company failed to make the required contributions. Plaintiffs brought suit pursuant to the public buildings and public works act to recover $12,755.65, which represents the delinquent contributions plus liquidated damages authorized by the collective bargaining agreement. Both parties filed motions for summary disposition. The trial court granted defendant's motion on the ground that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue under the public buildings and public works act. MCL 570.104; MSA 26.324 provides that the bond required by MCL 570.101; MSA 26.321 “may be prosecuted and a recovery had . . . by any person, firm, or corporation to whom any money shall be due and payable on account of having performed any labor or furnished any materials or supplies in the erection, repairing, or ornamentation” of any public building or public work. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that they qualify as a person, firm, or corporation to whom money is due for work performed on the highway project and that, therefore, they may bring suit under the statute. We disagree. The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Vugterveen Systems, Inc v Olde Millpond Corp, 210 Mich App 34, 44; 533 NW2d 320 (1995) lv gtd ___ Mich ___; 1996 Mich LEXIS 1063 (Docket Number 102988, issued 5/22/96). The Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed. Id. If a term is not defined by the Legislature, the term's ordinary meaning must be applied. Popma v Auto Club Insurance Ass’n, 446 Mich 460, 469-470; 521 NW2d 831 (1994). The Legislature chose to specify that only a person, firm, or corporation who performed work or furnished supplies on a highway project could bring suit on the bond. Clearly, plaintiffs do not qualify as a person, firm, or corporation who performed work on the highway project when the ordinary meaning of those terms is employed. There is no indication that the Legislature intended to allow anyone other than the actual person or entity who performed the work to bring suit on the bond. Plaintiffs' argument that a construction of MCL 570.104; MSA 26.324 that prohibits plaintiffs from bringing suit under the statute violates the equal protection clauses of the United States and -3­ Michigan constitutions was not raised in the trial court. Therefore, the issue is not properly preserved for appeal, and will not be addressed by this Court. Booth v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234; 507 NW2d 422 (1993). Affirmed. /s/Michael R. Smolenski /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ Francis D. Brouillette -4­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.