Indemnity Bond

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

• Royal Indem. Co. v. Knott
  136 So. 474· Fla.· 1931-07-23 ·cited 86×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a surety on an indemnity bond may be made a proper party to an equity suit for accounting against a bond trustee, but only for purposes of determining the extent of the surety's liability—not for obtaining a judgment against the surety itself.
• Donovan v. Mazzola
  716 F.2d 1226· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-23 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments finding the trustees breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and holding them in contempt for failing to post an indemnity bond.
• Briggs v. Merton v. Brown
  55 Fla. 417· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 47×
  Fred E. Briggs (as vice-president of Tropical Home Improvement Company) wrote a letter to the Aetna Indemnity Company alleging that Merton V. Brown, the company's former secretary and treasurer, had failed to account for approximately $372.37 and refused to explain a shortage in
• Kincade v. Mikles
  144 F.2d 784· 8th Cir.· 1944-10-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering a judgment against the surety company which was not a party to the action, but affirmed the judgment against the construction company for negligence.
• Drew Lumber Co. v. Union Inv. Co.
  66 Fla. 382· Fla.· 1913-11-25 ·cited 34×
  Drew Lumber Company appeals the grant of a temporary injunction restraining its interference with Union Investment Company's possession and improvement of disputed land in Suwannee County, Florida. The Court reversed the injunction, finding the bill complained primarily of acts a
• Ashley v. United Transp. Union & ITS Affiliated Local NO. 1121
  625 F.2d 1357· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not bar injunctive relief because the picketing did not arise from a labor dispute involving the union's economic self-interest, and federal jurisdiction existed under the Railway Labor Act to preserve dispute settlement procedures
• Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDONALD
  443 So. 2d 479· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-01-12 ·cited 27×
  The court receded from prior precedent, holding that a lis pendens may be discharged or controlled by the court if the initial pleading does not show the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument, and that a bond may be required in such cases.
• Hall v. Horne
  52 Fla. 510· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 24×
  Hall & Bigham appealed from an equity court's grant of a temporary injunction and restraining order against them regarding turpentine boxes. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the bill stated no cause for equitable relief because appellees lacked standing and failed
• Lovingood v. Butler Constr. Co.
  100 Fla. 1252· Fla.· 1930-11-15 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court decree denying foreclosure of a mortgage and granting a mechanic's lien to a construction company. The Court held that the construction company was not entitled to a mechanic's lien because it neither performed labor nor furnished
• Fla. Peach Corp. OF Am. v. Lurie
  411 So. 2d 339· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-24 ·cited 22×
  This case involves a dispute between a social club organized as a for-profit corporation and one of its member-shareholders concerning the shareholder's expulsion and his standing to continue a derivative suit.
• Chapman v. Pollard and Dorothy M. Pollard
  244 So. 2d 154· Fla. 2d DCA· 1971-02-10 ·cited 21×
  Plaintiffs filed suit seeking rescission of a real property deed based on alleged fraud by a broker-defendant and obtained a lis pendens. The trial court required plaintiffs to post a $199,500 indemnity bond as a condition for maintaining the lis pendens. The appellate court reve
• Solary v. Webster
  35 Fla. 363· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff on a bond indemnifying against construction claims, holding that the first count of the declaration failed to allege sufficient damage and that the trial court erroneously sustained demurrers to valid special pleas r
• Gillespie v. Chapline
  59 Fla. 500· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an interlocutory restraining order issued by the trial court against municipal officials, holding that the order was improperly granted without notice and should have been dissolved when the defendants denied the allegations in their answer.
• ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker
  79 So. 2d 762· Fla.· 1955-04-27 ·cited 15×
  All Florida Surety Company appealed a decree canceling an indemnity bond signed by subcontractors, arguing the trial court lacked authority to dismiss the appeal for non-payment of costs and erred in denying supersedeas. The Supreme Court held that trial courts cannot dismiss app
• Donovan v. Mazzola
  761 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to assess fines for contempt on the indemnity bond while an appeal was pending, and that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider individual impossibility defenses for fines on the restitution bond
• Florida Communities Hutchinson Island v. Arabia
  452 So. 2d 1131· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-18 ·cited 12×
  The trial court erred by denying the motion to dissolve the lis pendens without requiring the respondents to post an indemnity bond, as the action was not founded on a duly recorded instrument.
• MA v. The Cmty. Bank
  686 F.2d 459· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to consequential damages in the form of a higher interest rate on the principal funds wrongfully withheld, but not for other speculative losses or attorneys' fees under Wisconsin law.
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co.
  206 So. 2d 60· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-01-16 ·cited 10×
  A surety bond that explicitly states it does not inure to the benefit of any person other than the named obligee prevents a third-party materialman from recovering on the bond, even if the subcontract is incorporated by reference.
• Holley Coal Co. v. Globe Indem. Co.
  186 F.2d 291· 4th Cir.· 1950-12-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the issue of excluded officers' complicity in the loss to be tried, as it was tried by implied consent and the amendment related back to the original pleading.
• Coatings Mfrs., Inc. v. DPI, Inc.
  926 F.2d 474· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Mississippi law, as interpreted by analogy to similar statutes, does not permit suppliers of rental equipment to utilize the stop payment notice statute.
• Clay Cnty. v. Toney
  153 Fla. 172· Fla.· 1943-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an indemnity bond protecting mortgagees against loss from a stolen promissory note must cover a 20-year period (the note's maturity) or only 5 years. The Court held that a 5-year bond period was appropriate given that the note was lost
• McNEIL Constr. Co. v. Livingston State Bank
  265 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the amended complaint stated a claim for money owed, but certain allegations and exhibits were redundant and should have been stricken.
• Budke v. Kaiser-Frazer Co. OF Anchorage
  275 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the order appealed from was not a final decision, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Glens Falls Indem. Co. v. Am. Seating Co.
  248 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1957-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff, a material supplier to a subcontractor, could not recover from the subcontractor's surety and the prime contractor based on the subcontractor's performance and payment bonds, as these bonds did not obligate the surety or prime contractor to pay
• N.Y. Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Burlington
  213 F.2d 340· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Trustee, by assignment from Commodity Credit Corporation, did not attain the status of a holder in due course and that the warehouse company's defenses were not precluded by the bankruptcy court proceedings.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lafayette Eng'g & Tool Co., Inc.
  188 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1951-04-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the awarded damages were reasonable and commensurate with the proven damage, and that the bond covered the lienholder's claim.
• Frost v. Williams Mobile Offs., Inc.
  795 F.2d 372· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The Claimants are third-party beneficiaries of the indemnity bond and are entitled to sue for their unpaid claims.
• In re Uhlenhopp v. Heinie Uhlenhopp
  508 F.2d 412· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the referee did not err in permitting the amendment of the proof of claim to correct the attached promissory note, and that the factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence.
• Lassiter v. Powell
  164 F.2d 186· 4th Cir.· 1947-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the retention of a compromise note by a bank conservator and later by trustees, without explicit acceptance, did not discharge the original notes, and that the assignment of the compromise note to a liquidator did not constitute acceptance.
• Mitchell, Green, Pino & Medaris, P.C. v. Underwriters AT Lloyd's OF London
  858 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the condition precedent of the insured (Leedy) paying its directors for legal fees was not met, and therefore the insurers were not liable under the indemnity bond, even with assignments and a bankruptcy court order.
• PETRÓLEOS DE Venezuela, S.A. v. PDV Holding, Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2023-11-28
  The Court of Chancery properly ordered the issuance of a replacement stock certificate, conditioned upon the posting of a nominal, unsecured bond. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied its burden of proving the original certificate was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and t
• Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
  793 F.2d 780· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-19
  A title insurance policy covers losses from statutory liens for labor or materials that gain priority over the insured's mortgage, even if the project is underfunded, unless the insured created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to those specific liens.
• Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. & N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co.
  402 F.2d 930· 7th Cir.· 1968-10-29
  A carrier is not liable under 49 U.S.C. § 20(11) for delivering goods without requiring surrender of the order bill of lading if it complies with Uniform Freight Classification 6, Section 3, by obtaining an indemnity bond.
• Consol. Packing Co., Inc. v. Capitol Packing Co.
  389 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-25
  The court affirmed the district court's findings, holding that Mt. Vernon acted as Consolidated's agent, not Capitol's, and that delivery was made to Consolidated.
• Piedmont Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  307 F.2d 310· 4th Cir.· 1962-08-15
  A savings and loan association cannot recover on an indemnity bond for losses stemming from forged endorsements on checks when the ultimate loss was caused by the borrower's insolvency and the failure of the security, not the forgery itself.