Free Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

. · Case 1 :05-cv-00880-GIVIS Document 1 Filed 12/21 /2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
385 Washington Street :
St. Paul, MN 55102 :
and
DAISY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
3128 New Castle Avenue :
New Castle, DE 19720 2
Piamurrs, 2
v.
WALPAR, mc. Z
4200 Jefferson Avenue :
Birmingham, AL 35221 :
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
This declaratory judgment action arises out of a claim made by Defendant,
Walpar, Inc. ("Walpar"), on a surety bond issued by Plaintiffs, St. Paul Travelers Companies,
Inc. ("St. Paul"), as surety, and Daisy Construction Company ("Daisy"), as principal, in
connection with Daisy’s role as the general contractor on a construction proj ect at the Delaware
Memorial Bridge (the "Proj ect"). Walpar’s only involvement in the Proj ect was limited to
supplying materials to a subcontractor. Walpar, therefore, lacks standing to assert a claim
against the surety bond. Accordingly, St. Paul and Daisy respectfully request that this Court
resolve the instant controversy and declare that Walpar has no standing to assert a claim under
the bond. In support of this request, St. Paul and Daisy aver as follows:
# 417565 v. l

_ _ · · Case 1 :05-cv—00880-GIVIS Document 1 Filed 12/21 /2005 Page 2 of 4
THE PARTIES ·
1. St. Paul is a corporation, incorporated in the State of Minnesota, with a
principal place of business at 385 Washington, Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102.
2. Daisy is a corporation, incorporated in the State of Delaware, with a
principal place of business at 3128 New Castle Avenue, New Castle, DE 19720.
3. Walpar is a corporation, incorporated in the State of Alabama, with a
principal place of business at 4200 Jefferson Avenue Birmingham, AL 35221.
JURISDICTION AND VEN
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because complete
diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
exclusive of interest and costs.
5. Venue is proper in the judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2)
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred
within this judicial district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. On or about May 3, 2002, Daisy entered into an agreement with the
Delaware River and Bay Authority to act as the general contractor on the Proj ect.
7. St. Paul, as surety, and Daisy, as principal, issued a surety bond in
connection with Daisy’s role as general contractor on the Proj ect. A copy of the bond is attached
hereto as exhibit "A."
2 # 417565 v. 1

_ _ . · Case 1 :05-cv-00880-GIVIS Document 1 Filed 12/21 /2005 Page 3 of 4
8. On or about April 26, 2002, Daisy entered into a subcontract agreement
with Specialty Service Contractors ("Specialty") pursuant to which Specialty was to perform a
certain defined scope of work on the Proj ect. .
9. In connection with the performance of its work on the Proj ect, Specialty
ordered and received materials and supplies from Walpar.
l0. Walpar’s involvement on the Proj ect was limited to providing materials to
Specialty. Walpar did not have any contractual relationship with Daisy, nor did it directly supply
any materials to Daisy.
ll. Walpar has made a demand against the surety bond for an amount greater
than $75,000. Walpar’s claim is for amounts that are allegedly owed to it by Specialty for the
materials that it fumished to Specialty, which it claims are guaranteed by the surety bond.
Walpar has recently threatened to commence a lawsuit against St. Paul in Alabama for these
amounts. `
12. Walpar’s claim against the bond is without merit because as a supplier to a
subcontractor on the Proj ect, it lacks standing to assert a claim against the surety bond.
13. St. Paul and Daisy are entitled to declaratory relief because there is an
actual controversy among St. Paul, Daisy, and Walpar regarding the surety bond and such relief
will clarify and resolve this dispute, terminating the tmcertainty, insecurity, and controversy
between the parties.
3 # 417555 v. 1

_ Case 1:05-cv—00880-G|\/IS Document 1 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 4 of 4
WHEREFORE, St. Paul and Daisy request that the Court declare that Walpar lacks
standing to assert a claim on the surety bond.
Respecth111y submitted:
Kevin W. Goldstein 7
Maryanne T. Donaghy
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
P.O. Box 2170
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 576-5850
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
Edward Seglias é
COHEN, SEGLIAS, ALLAS, GREENHALL &
FURMAN, P.C.
Nemours Building
1007 Orange Street, Suite 205
Wilmington, DE 19801
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Daisy Construction Company
Counsel for St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.:
Patrick R. Kingsley
William T. Mandia
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 564-8000
4 # 417565 v. 1