CBCA 865

Utica Mutual Insurance Company

Nov 8, 2007Judge GilmoreDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Not published in the listingSettled

Key Facts

Appellant
Utica Mutual Insurance Company
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Judge
Gilmore
Case number
CBCA 865
Decided
Nov 8, 2007The decision states Nov 8, 2007 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Not published in the listingThe Board's year tables for 2007 through 2014 carry no Type column, so no disposition was published for this decision. It is not missing data and nothing is inferred from the document.
Law firm for the appellant
Goldberg Segalla LLP
Outcome
Settled
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
Read from the shouted disposition line the Board prints above this decision's own date, and quoted from its operative sentence above. No model is involved.

Topics

Jurisdiction and timeliness

Topics are derived from each decision's own text by keyword rules, not a classification by the Board. A decision matching several topics carries all of them, so topic counts sum above the number of decisions.

Appearances

For the appellant
Bruce W. Hoover
Goldberg Segalla LLP
Buffalo, NY
For the respondent
Ronald Mulach
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture
Milwaukee, WI
Decision PDF (cbca.gov) Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act casesThe Board's year listing this row was read fromThe decision document is hosted by the Board itself, so it is an official copy, and the Board's own Contract Disputes Act case listing is the citable source. The topics, the disposition and the appearances above are read deterministically from the decision's own words; no model is involved.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the CBCA workspace: a grounded decision brief drafted from the Board's own words, the Insights dashboard over the whole corpus, and the filtered browser.

CBCA Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief on this decision, drafted from the captured text with every quote and authority checked against it.

Insights

Who prevails before the Board, by topic and by judge, with every denominator visible: merits rulings, not decisions.

Browse with Filters

The whole corpus by year, decision type, topic, judge and disposition, searchable across the decisions' own text.

Full Decision

Full text of the decision2 pages, 1,899 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Nov 8, 2007 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

1 authority read from this decision's own text, grouped by the body of law each comes from. Select one to read it at its publisher.

Contract Disputes Act1

Read from the decision's own words with no model involved. Statutes, regulations, the acts these forums argue by name, and cases at the board, this office or the Comptroller General are recognized; any other citation form is left out rather than guessed at, so this is a floor on what the decision cites.

DISMISSED: November 8, 2007

CBCA 865

UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent.

Bruce W. Hoover of Goldberg Segalla LLP, Buffalo, NY, counsel for Appellant.

The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.

Ronald Mulach, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Milwaukee, WI, counsel for Respondent.

GILMORE, Board Judge.

Order

In this matter, appellant, Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica) seeks to clarify its rights and obligations under the payment bond it furnished in connection with a timber sale contract between the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (DAFS) and Payne Enterprises (Payne). After Payne defaulted under the contract, Utica paid $757,334.64 to DAFS under the payment bond. The parties are in dispute as to what other financial obligations appellant has to DAFS under the payment bond, and whether appellant is entitled to an assignment of DAFS’s rights against Payne.

_____________________________

2 CBCA 865

On October 12, 2007, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 601-613 (2006) (CDA), on the grounds that: (1) there is no contract between appellant and respondent; (2) there is no claim by a contractor against the Government relating to a contract; and (3) there is no final decision by the contracting officer. Appellant did not file a response to the motion. Instead, appellant and respondent filed a joint stipulation, agreeing and stipulating that the Board does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the CDA and that the appeal should be dismissed with prejudice. While the parties have no authority to independently determine whether the Board has jurisdiction, it is clear that the parties believe that this matter is not properly before the Board, and that they do not want the Board to proceed with the appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

BERYL S. GILMORE

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Utica Mutual Insurance Company, CBCA 865. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.

Related Decisions

Same Topic

Same Year

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.