UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF AETNA DRYWALL CONTRACTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-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.
The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict based on the statute of limitations and failure to apportion damages.
Aetna Drywall sued Aetna Casualty and Renel for damages under a subcontract. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants.…
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 Subcontractor Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Aetna Drywall Contractors, Inc., brought this suit against Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Renel Construction, Inc., for damages sustained by Aetna Drywall in connection with work performed on the Federal Building and Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale under a subcontract with Renel. At the close of Aetna Drywall’s case, the district judge granted a directed verdict because Aetna Drywall: (1) failed to apportion damages, (2) failed to file the lawsuit within the period of the statute of limitations, and (3) failed to plead or prove estop-pel. We reverse because the district judge erroneously decided the first two issues.
The statute of limitations issue is the easiest and most straightforward. Aetna Drywall filed this action within one year (the applicable limitations period) of their last furnishing of materials and labor for the project; however, Drywall did not file within one year of the last furnishing of materials or labor at issue in the suit. Relying on United States ex rel. McGrath v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 253 F.Supp. 330 (D.Ariz.1966), the district court held that Drywall should have filed within one year of the furnishing at issue.
The district court erred because McGrath is not the law in this circuit. In General Electric Co. v. Southern Const. Co., 383 F. 2d 135 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 955, 88 S.Ct. 1049, 19 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1968), the predecessor to this circuit1 held that the date of the last furnishing is the appropriate date whether or not that furnishing is at issue in the suit. Id. at 138. The rationale underlying this rule is the prevention of multiple lawsuits between the same parties. Renel and Aetna Casualty offer this court no logical reason to abandon this rule (even if we had the power to do so).
Concerning the apportionment issue, the district court held Drywall’s failure to apportion fatally defective, citing United States ex rel. Gray-Bar Electric Co. v. J.H. Copeland & Sons Const., Inc., 568 F. 2d 1159 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 957, 98 S.Ct. 3072, 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978).
In that case, although both the government and the contractor caused a portion of the damages, the court held that the plaintiff need not apportion because an equitable adjustment clause in the general contract made the government liable to the contractor for damages caused by the government. Id. at 1162.
The general contract in this case contained a similar provision, and, contrary to the statement of the district judge, Drywall produced evidence at trial tending to prove that the subcontract, as in Gray-Bar, incorporated that provision. Transcript at 427.
Thus, the district court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants on this issue.2
Because the district judge erroneously decided that Aetna Drywall is required to apportion damages, we need not address whether he correctly ruled that the defendants are not estopped from asserting Drywall’s failure to apportion. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. States Constr., Inc. v. Hand, 892 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1990)…ment for delay expenses from Atlantic States on the same basis that Atlantic States was entitled to an equitable adjustment for delay expenses from the Navy. See United States ex rel. Aetna Drywall Contractors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 725 F. 2d 650, 651 (11th Cir.1984) (in suit by subcontractor against prime contractor, subcontractor need not apportion damages on basis of whether change orders or other delays were fault of contractor or federal government where subcontract incorporated provisi…
-
Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. The United States Postal Serv. & John T. Brady & Co., 811 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 1987)…E.g., Arvanis v. Noslo Eng’g Consultants, Inc., 739 F. 2d 1287 (7th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1191, 105 S.Ct. 964, 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985); United States for the use of Aetna Drywall Contractors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 725 F. 2d 650 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Warrior Constructors, Inc. v. Harders, Inc., 387 F. 2d 727 (5th Cir.1967); United States for the use of B's Co. v. Cleveland Elec. Co., 373 F. 2d 585 (4th Cir.1967); Fanderlik-Locke Co. v. United States, 285 F. 2d 939 (…
Authorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. S. Constr. Co., Inc., 383 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Little v. Oregon, 390 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1968)
- Mancuso v. United States, 390 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1968)
- Cent. Ark. Auction Sale, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 436 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1978)
- Akers Motor Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 436 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1978)
- Reed v. Grissom, 454 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1981)
- United States v. J. H. Copeland & Sons Constr., Inc., 568 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United Elec. Corp. v. The United States, 647 F.2d 1082 (Ct. Cl. 1981)
- United States for the Use & Benefit of T/N Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fryd Constr. Corp., 423 F.2d 980 (5th Cir. 1970)