Insurer claims JAG Roofing left it on the hook for six-figure losses after bond claims
By Tez Romero
Trisura Insurance Company is taking JAG Roofing Inc. and its owner to federal court, claiming more than $174,000 in losses and facing over $770,000 in potential exposure after backing bonds for Florida construction work.
Filed on Sept. 3, in the Southern District of Florida, the complaint lays out a story that will sound familiar to anyone in the commercial insurance and surety business. Trisura, based in Oklahoma, says it issued three performance and payment bonds for JAG Roofing’s projects – one in Georgia and two in Florida – after JAG and its principal, Michael Ramjit Jagroo, signed an indemnity agreement. That agreement, Trisura says, was supposed to guarantee that if anything went wrong, JAG and Jagroo would cover the insurer’s losses.
According to Trisura, things did go wrong. The insurer says it has already paid out $174,822.76 in losses and expenses tied to those bonds, with more claims possibly on the way. The projects involved were substantial: the bonds covered a $1,700,000 project for Best Value Management, LLC in Georgia, a $180,000 project in Key West for Cremer Global Services, Inc., and a $133,892.21 project for G.M. Hill Engineering, Inc. in Florida.
The complaint details the claims that have come in so far. Beacon Sales Acquisition Inc. d/b/a Beacon Building Products, Titan Consultants and Engineers, LLC, Contractors Access Equipment d/b/a Direct Scaffold Services, and G.M. Hill Engineering, Inc. have all made claims against the bonds, according to Trisura. The insurer says it’s not just the money already paid out that’s the problem – there’s still more than $770,000 in potential exposure, including a single claim for $723,783.85 from American Builders & Contractors Supply Co., Inc. d/b/a ABC Supply Co., Inc.
Trisura’s position is straightforward: they say JAG Roofing and Jagroo agreed to back them up, and now that the claims have come in, the company wants the indemnitors to fulfill their obligations. The insurer says it made formal demands for collateral and indemnification on December 16, 2024, and again on August 4, 2025, but the indemnitors failed or refused to comply.
What’s especially interesting for insurance professionals is the way Trisura’s complaint leans on the language of the indemnity agreement. The insurer says the agreement allows it to demand collateral at its sole and absolute discretion if it determines a potential for loss exists, and to settle claims without prior obligation to notify the indemnitors. The agreement also states that Trisura’s own records of payments are prima facie evidence of the amount of liability.
The case isn’t about health or life insurance, and it doesn’t involve individual consumers. It’s focused on commercial surety bonds and the risks that come with backing construction projects. For anyone in the business of underwriting, managing, or recovering on surety bonds, the dispute is a reminder of why those indemnity agreements matter - and what can happen when things go sideways.
Right now, this is just the beginning. Trisura’s complaint is a claim, not a court ruling. The outcome is still to be decided. But with significant sums and the fundamentals of indemnity on the line, it’s a case worth watching for anyone in the insurance business.