A union’s benefit funds are suing Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company for nearly $175,000 in unpaid contributions tied to a New York courthouse project, according to a complaint filed August 12, 2025.
The trustees for several benefit funds of Plumbers Local Union No. 200 allege they are owed at least $174,492.46 for work performed by ARA Plumbing Corp. on the Nassau County Family and Matrimonial Court – Phase II Project. These funds include welfare, pension, vacation, supplemental vested annuity, additional security benefits, and apprentice training funds. The complaint states that ARA Plumbing, a subcontractor, was required to pay fringe benefit contributions and remit working dues and assessments deducted from employees’ wages, as set out in its collective bargaining agreement with the union.
According to the union’s trustees, ARA Plumbing worked on the project from December 2022 through November 2024 as a subcontractor for E&A Restoration, Inc., the principal on the bond. The union claims that ARA Plumbing became defunct and insolvent, shutting down on or about December 1, 2024, and failed to pay the required contributions and dues for the hours worked by its employees during that period.
The lawsuit targets Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company as the surety on a labor and material payment bond issued for the project, specifically Bond No. PB01622700030. The union’s trustees claim that under New York State Finance Law §137, the bond was meant to guarantee payment for labor and materials, including the union benefit funds. They assert that they are intended beneficiaries of the bond and have met all conditions necessary to seek payment under it.
The complaint alleges that, despite making demands and providing timely notice, the union’s benefit funds have not received payment from Philadelphia Indemnity for the unpaid amounts. The trustees are seeking a judgment for the unpaid contributions, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
It’s worth noting that these are claims made by the union’s trustees in their complaint. At this point, the court has not made any findings, and Philadelphia Indemnity has not yet responded to the allegations. The case is in its earliest stages, and the outcome remains to be seen.
For insurance professionals, especially those involved in surety bonds and construction projects, this case highlights the risks associated with guaranteeing payment on large public works. The question at the heart of the dispute is whether a surety must step in when a subcontractor fails to pay union benefit funds. The answer could have implications for how similar claims are handled in the future.
All details, names, dates, and amounts in this article are taken directly from the complaint filed on August 12, 2025. As the case progresses, the insurance industry will be watching to see how the court interprets the obligations of surety providers under New York law and whether Philadelphia Indemnity will ultimately be required to pay the union’s benefit funds.
