LEO C. HYDER AND S. D. HYDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A H & H CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY OF FLORIDA AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
H & H Construction appealed a trial court judgment that limited attorney's fees to 12.5% of damages awarded against a performance bond surety, despite a subcontract provision for reasonable attorney's fees. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statutory limitation on attorney's fees applies only to suits against surety insurers, not to the underlying breach of contract claim against the subcontractor.
Section 627.756 applies only to suits against a surety insurer and has no application to suits between the contracting parties. Therefore, the contractual provision for reasonable attorney's fees is not limited by the statute, and H & H Construction is entitled to recover the reasonable amount of $3,000.00 in attorney's fees.
[1] A party's right to an award of attorney's fees must be established by contract or a specific statute.
[2] A statutory limitation on attorney's fees in suits against a surety insurer does not apply to suits between the contracting parties.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 627.756(2), applies only to suits against a surety insurer. It has no application to suits between the contracting parties.”
The holding that the statutory limitation on attorney's fees does not apply to breach of contract claims between original contracting parties, only to suits against the bond surety.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH & H Construction subcontracted with Acousti Engineering for renovations, with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company providing a performance bo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suit On Performance Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
The question presented is whether section 627.756, Florida Statutes (1977),1 limits an award of attorney’s fees to 12.5 percent of the damages awarded by the jury against a subcontractor who has obtained a performance bond notwithstanding that the subcontract agreement provided for a “reasonable” attorney’s fee.
We conclude there is no such limitation.
Appellants, Leo C. Hyder and S. D. Hy-der, d/b/a H & H Construction Company, subcontracted with appellee, Acousti Engineering Company, for certain renovations. Appellee, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, wrote a performance bond for Acousti. Thereafter, Acousti breached the subcontract and H & H Construction filed suit. The complaint was in two counts: Count I sought damages for breach of contract and for reasonable attorney’s fees as specified in the contract; Count II was against USF&G on its performance bond. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $5,546.20. At a subsequent hearing, the court combined the attorney’s fee award against both Acousti and USF&G and limited the amount allowable to 12.5 percent or $693.28, pursuant to the statute. The parties have stipulated that were it not for the statute, the sum of $3,000.00 would be a reasonable fee.
The right of a party to an award of attorney’s fees must be established either by contract or by a specific statute. Joseph v. Houdaille-Duval-Wright Co., 213 So. 2d 3 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). The contract between H & H Construction and Acousti clearly provided for an award of reasonable attor ney’s fees. Acousti conceded that if USF&G had not written a bond, there would be no limitation as imposed by the statute; however, it contends that the statute limits the recovery because of the presence of the bond. Acousti also acknowledges that had H & H Construction sued only Acousti and not joined USF&G, reasonable attorney’s fees could also have been recovered.
In their complaint, H & H Construction carefully sought reasonable attorney’s fees and damages against Acousti and sought only damages against USF&G on its performance bond. Entitlement to reasonable fees should not turn on the technical point of combining two counts in one suit rather than filing two separate actions.
Section 627.756(2), applies only to suits against a surety insurer. It has no application to suits between the contracting parties.
Therefore, the judgment dated June 15, 1979, is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to enter judgment for H & H Construction in the amount of $3,000.00 with interest from the date judgment appealed was entered.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur. . Bonds for construction contracts; attorney fees in case of suit — Section 627.428 (attorney fee) shall also apply as to suits brought by owners, subcontractors, laborers and material men against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of Florida to indemnify such owners, subcontractors, laborers and material men against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract; except, that the amount to be so recovered for fees or compensation of such a plaintiffs attorney shall not be more than 12.5 percent of the amount which the judgment or decree awards such plaintiff under the bond (exclusive of the costs of suit and attorney fees or compensation), nor shall it be less than $100 where the judgment or decree is for more than $500 nor less than $50 where the judgment or decree is $500 or less. Such owners, subcontractors, laborers and material men shall be deemed to be “insureds” or “beneficiaries” for the purposes of this section.