A surety is going after a New York contractor and its president for $2.76 million after a Manhattan project default.
Great Midwest Insurance Company sued Agir Electrical, doing business as Pinnacle Electric, and its president, Antony Gironta, on May 11, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint is a surety indemnity action - and it shows how fast bond exposure can pile up when a construction job goes wrong.
The bonds were sizeable. According to the filing, Great Midwest issued a performance bond and a payment bond on December 28, 2022, each numbered GM211646 and each in the amount of $13,999,000, backing Agir/Pinnacle's subcontract with Leeding Builders Group for work at 125 West 57th Street in New York City.
About two years later, things turned. The complaint says the surety got notices of default on November 15 and November 21, 2024. It then brought in an accounting firm to set up an escrow account, hired counsel, and started paying payment bond claims while letting the contractor keep working.
The damage so far, as the filing tells it: $2,612,463.83 in paid loss, $144,980 in accounting and consulting expenses, and $83,943 in attorneys' fees - a running tab the complaint puts at more than $2,841,386. Another $870,765 in claims is still under review, the filing says. Total payment bond exposure on the project, as of October 6, 2025, was $11,157,614 according to the complaint.
The case turns on a General Agreement of Indemnity the defendants are alleged to have signed on or about July 28, 2022. The wording is wide. The complaint quotes it: the indemnitors agreed to hold the surety harmless from "ANY AND ALL LOSS WHATSOEVER, including but not limited to any and all liability, loss, claims, demands, costs, damages, attorneys' fees and expenses of whatever kind or nature." The same agreement, as quoted in the filing, lets Great Midwest decide on its own whether claims should be "paid, compromised, defended, prosecuted or appealed," with that decision described as "final and binding upon the Indemnitors."
There is also a collateral clause - the one surety professionals will recognize. The filing says it lets the surety demand cash or other security on the spot. Great Midwest says it sent a demand letter dated October 6, 2025, asking for $2,040,000 in collateral and access to the company's books and records by October 20. None of that arrived, the complaint says.
That is why Great Midwest is asking the court to order specific performance on the collateral demand, not just damages. The filing argues that without it, the surety will be forced to "invade its own assets" to keep covering losses - the same irreparable harm pitch sureties make when they push for collateral in court.
A fourth count keeps the meter running. The complaint says future losses, unpaid bond premiums, and other recoverable debts could still surface, and Great Midwest wants those covered too.
For carriers and claims professionals, the lawsuit is a clean look at how a broadly drafted indemnity agreement is meant to function: one project default, and the surety is suing both the company and its president, jointly and severally, for everything from paid claims to consulting fees.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The defendants have not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
