Compensated Surety

33 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. R. Nelson Smith in Bankr. for Jacksonville Marble & Tile Co.
  100 Fla. 1012· Fla.· 1930-10-27 ·cited 180×
  American Surety Company appeals judgments awarding materialmen recovery on a contractor's performance bond despite not being formal parties to the bond. The Florida Supreme Court holds that materialmen who supplied materials for construction work may sue directly on a bond when t
• Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co.
  736 F.2d 388· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 26×
  A compensated surety is not discharged by an extension of time for performance unless the extension is supported by valid consideration, and a surety is not discharged by extensions if it had notice and tacitly consented.
• Maule Indus., Inc. v. Gaines Constr. Co., Inc.
  157 So. 2d 835· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-10-30 ·cited 26×
  Maule Industries and Gunite Associates sued to foreclose mechanics' liens and determine liability under a payment bond. The court held that while the lienholders failed to strictly comply with the payment bond's notice requirements, substantial compliance through notice to the pr
• Wyo. Constr. Co. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co.
  275 F.2d 97· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a surety seeking indemnity from its principal can recover costs incurred in completing the contract, even if performance dates were extended or advances were made, provided the principal's own actions caused the default and the surety acted in good faith. The
• Phoenix Indem. Co. v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Alachua Cnty.
  114 So. 2d 478· Fla. 1st DCA· 1959-09-24 ·cited 24×
  Phoenix Indemnity Company, as surety on a performance bond for a public works contract, appeals a judgment requiring it to pay unpaid insurance premiums owed by the contractor. The court holds that insurance premiums are covered by the bond because the contract required the contr
• Nelson v. Seaboard Sur. Co.
  269 F.2d 882· 8th Cir.· 1959-09-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while a partnership existed between H&R Construction and Investment Company, Seaboard Surety Company, with knowledge of this partnership, elected to deal solely with H&R Construction, thereby waiving its right to seek recovery from the Nelsons (Investment Comp
• Nat'l Gypsum Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
  417 So. 2d 254· Fla.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case where a materialman sued a surety for payment after the contractor defaulted. The court held that strict compliance with the bond's notice provision was required, rejecting the argument that the surety must show prejudice from the lack of
• Gibbs v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  62 So. 2d 599· Fla.· 1952-12-19 ·cited 21×
  In this 1952 Florida Supreme Court case, a homeowner (Gibbs) sued a surety company (Hartford) on a performance bond when the contractor defaulted on a home construction contract. The court held that a compensated surety is not automatically discharged by premature payments to the
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. D & L Constr. Co.
  353 F.2d 169· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a surety is not entitled to reformation of unambiguous bonds based on a unilateral mistake of law, and that completion costs recoverable by a prime contractor must be offset by the unpaid subcontract balance.
• Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Feutz
  182 F.2d 752· 8th Cir.· 1950-06-27 ·cited 18×
  A compensated surety's contract is construed against the surety, and if the bond is fairly open to two interpretations, the one favoring the insured will be adopted. Assignees of the original obligee are covered by the bond when the contract referenced in the bond contemplates su
• The Winston Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  508 F.2d 1298· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the April 7 agreement was not a novation that discharged the surety, and the failure to provide seven days' notice was an insubstantial breach that did not prejudice the surety.
• Jack v. Craighead Rice Milling Co.
  167 F.2d 96· 8th Cir.· 1948-03-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the surety's actions constituted a waiver of the notice requirement, and the assignment of the bond did not invalidate the contract. The admission of evidence regarding waterproofing costs and the introduction of plans from a similar project were not prejudici
• United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Se. Reg'l Builders, Inc.
  236 So. 2d 460· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-06-16 ·cited 12×
  United Bonding Insurance Company issued a performance bond naming Newman and Kenny, a partnership, as principal, but the principals altered the bond to designate themselves as a corporation without the surety's knowledge. When the subcontractor defaulted, the surety denied liabil
• Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. United States
  410 F.2d 524· 8th Cir.· 1969-04-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that modifications to a bail bond's travel restrictions, when inserted into the bond form, are binding on the surety without its consent.
• Bear v. Standard Accident Ins. Co.
  124 Fla. 9· Fla.· 1936-02-19 ·cited 12×
  Bear and Sullivan appealed a chancery decree denying their request for equitable relief against Standard Accident Insurance Company, a surety bond issuer. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Sullivan and Bear are entitled to have a court of equity adjudi
• The Arbor Club OF Boca Raton, Inc., Ltd. v. Omega Constr. Co., Inc.
  565 So. 2d 357· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-07-18 ·cited 6×
  Arbor Club sued surety Transamerica for delay damages resulting from contractor Omega's breach of a construction contract. The trial court instructed the jury that the surety was not liable for delay damages, and the jury returned a verdict for Transamerica. The appellate court r
• Ramada Dev. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  626 F.2d 517· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a surety is not discharged pro tanto for advance payments made by the obligee to the principal if those payments do not materially prejudice the surety's interests. The court also held that interest on the judgment should be calculated from the date of payment
• Conesco Indus. v. Conforti & Eisele, Inc.
  627 F.2d 312· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the surety's liability is not barred by failure to provide notice within 90 days, as the bond did not make such notice a condition precedent to recovery and the surety suffered no prejudice.
• Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Fin. Indem. Co.
  347 So. 2d 825· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-07-06 ·cited 6×
  Carnival Cruise Lines sued Financial Indemnity Company on a surety bond covering Caribbean Travel Center's obligation to pay for cruise bookings. The court reversed a directed verdict for Financial, holding that a compensated surety must affirmatively prove prejudice from late no
• A. J. Kellos Constr. Co. v. Balboa Ins. Co.
  661 F.2d 402· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 4×
  Notice to sue is timely under Ga.Code Ann. § 103-205 even if given after a principal's default but before the amount of damages is known.
• Craftmark Homes, Inc. v. Nanticoke Constr. Co. Appeal of First Pa. Bank
  526 F.2d 790· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 4×
  Submission of vouchers signed by the general contractor with FHA Form 2403 attached is not a condition precedent to recovery under the guarantee.
• Nat'l Union Indem. Co. v. G. E. Bass & Co., Inc.
  369 F.2d 75· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that premature payments by a prime contractor to a subcontractor, which substantially altered the contract and prejudiced the surety, entitled the surety to a pro tanto release from its obligations.
• Phoenix Assurance Co. OF NEW York v. City OF Buckner
  305 F.2d 54· 8th Cir.· 1962-07-18 ·cited 4×
  A compensated surety cannot avoid its obligation on a performance bond due to delays or changes in the principal's contract, absent proof of material harm or a clear misconception of state law by the trial court.
• Madison Cnty. Farmers Ass'n v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  209 F.2d 581· 8th Cir.· 1954-01-26 ·cited 4×
  A compensated surety is still considered a surety under Arkansas law for the purpose of statutory defenses, and failure to comply with notice requirements exonerates the surety from liability.
• Basic Asphalt & Constr. Corp. v. Parliament Ins. Co.
  531 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 3×
  A compensated surety is not automatically discharged by an extension of time granted to the debtor without the surety's consent, but only to the extent of prejudice shown.
• Mitacon Anstalt and Societe Choron Internationale v. F.I.A. Ins. Co.
  749 F.2d 175· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 2×
  A compensated surety is not discharged from its obligation due to an immaterial alteration in the underlying contract that substitutes a new buyer, provided the alteration does not materially increase the surety's risk or cause it injury.
• H. K. H. Co. v. Am. Mortg. Ins. Co.
  685 F.2d 315· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not obligate the insurer to pay expenses and taxes beyond the guaranteed rental payment when it became the successor in possession.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co.
  394 So. 2d 481· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-02-17 ·cited 2×
  Travelers Indemnity Company appealed a summary judgment in favor of National Gypsum Company on a claim against a construction payment bond. The court held that a materialman's failure to provide written notice to the surety within ninety days as required by the bond's express ter
• Atterbury v. Carpenter
  321 F.2d 921· 9th Cir.· 1963-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Atterbury was a surety, not an indemnitor, and was discharged from his obligation due to material changes in the loan agreement made without his consent.
• Va. Metal Prods. Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  219 F.2d 931· 2d Cir.· 1955-02-14 ·cited 2×
  A prior judgment, even if in favor of the insured, can bar an insurer's subrogation claim against the primary wrongdoer if it fixes the amount recoverable.
• United States Guar. Co. v. Colonial Oil Co.
  145 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-14 ·cited 2×
  A surety is bound by the principal's good-faith allocation of shared costs to a bonded project, even if exact usage cannot be proven, and a payment from mixed project proceeds can be applied to a pre-existing debt if the creditor is unaware it's partnership funds.
• White v. Lofton A. Phillips
  679 F.2d 373· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-16
  The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded for factual findings regarding the nature of the factoring agreements and the scope of the guaranty.
• White v. Brown
  292 F.2d 725· D.C. Cir.· 1961-04-20
  The dissenting judge would hold the appellant liable and affirm the district court's judgment, disagreeing with the majority's theories for releasing the retired partner.