Trisura Insurance Company is taking JAG Roofing Inc. and its owner, Michael Ramjit Jagroo, to federal court over more than $174,000 in losses tied to surety bonds for construction projects, with potential claims exceeding $770,000 still looming. The case, filed on September 3 in the Southern District of Florida, centers on performance and payment bonds that Trisura issued for JAG Roofing’s work in Georgia and Florida.
Trisura, based in Oklahoma, backed three bonds linked to JAG’s projects: a $1.7 million contract for Best Value Management, LLC in Georgia; a $180,000 job in Key West for Cremer Global Services, Inc.; and a $133,892 project for G.M. Hill Engineering, Inc. in Florida. The insurer says it’s already paid out $174,822.76 related to claims on these bonds.
Several companies, including Titan Consultants and Engineers, LLC, Contractors Access Equipment (doing business as Direct Scaffold Services), and G.M. Hill Engineering, have made claims. One of the largest pending claims is from American Builders & Contractors Supply Co., Inc., amounting to $723,783.85. With these and other potential claims, Trisura’s exposure could reach over $770,000.
At the heart of this dispute is an indemnity agreement signed by JAG Roofing and Jagroo when the bonds were issued. Trisura says the agreement requires them to cover the insurer’s losses and provide collateral if needed. The insurer claims it made formal requests for collateral and indemnification in December 2024 and again in August 2025 but received no cooperation.
The complaint also highlights some important points from the indemnity contract. It allows Trisura to demand collateral at its sole discretion if it believes losses may occur, and to settle claims without prior notice to JAG or Jagroo. The insurer’s own payment records serve as proof of how much they owe under this agreement.
This lawsuit is about commercial surety bonds, not health or life insurance, and it focuses on the risks involved in backing construction projects. For those working with surety bonds, it’s a clear example of why indemnity agreements matter and how things can unravel when financial issues arise.
For now, the case has just begun, and no court decision has been reached. Still, with significant amounts at stake and core indemnity terms on the line, this dispute is one to watch within the insurance and construction industries.