The appellant owner entered into a construction contract with the contractor, which included a performance bond issued by the respondent surety.
The contract contained a cost-sharing provision for savings achieved during construction.
The contractor ceased operations before paying the owner its share of the savings.
The owner completed the work and claimed the savings from the surety under the bond.
The trial judge found that while the bond covered the cost savings, the owner's claim failed because it did not promptly declare the contractor in default and notify the surety, causing prejudice to the surety.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, dismissing both the appeal and the surety's cross-appeal regarding the bond's coverage.
