Subcontractor Definition

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

• H. B. Zachry Co. v. The United States
  344 F.2d 352· Ct. Cl.· 1965-04-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Glover's drivers were not covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, deferring to administrative interpretations.
• Street v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co.
  148 So. 2d 38· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-12-20 ·cited 24×
  Street's widow sued Safway Steel Scaffold Company for negligence after her husband died in a construction accident caused by collapsing shoring equipment. The court held that Safway was a subcontractor to the prime contractor and therefore immune from tort liability under the Wor
• Basich Bros. Const. Co. v. United States
  159 F.2d 182· 9th Cir.· 1946-12-26 ·cited 22×
  Duque & Frazzini were subcontractors within the meaning of the Miller Act because they performed and took from the prime contractor a specific part of the labor or material requirements of the original contract.
• Morgan v. Haywood Goodwin
  355 So. 2d 217· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-02-24 ·cited 20×
  A subcontractor who performed work on a land-clearing project sought a mechanic's lien and equitable lien against the property owners and a surety bond after the general contractor failed to pay him. The court held that because the subcontractor furnished materials and equipment
• United States v. Lembke Constr. Co., Inc.
  370 F.2d 293· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-20 ·cited 18×
  A supplier of materials, even if supplying all materials for a project and conforming to specifications, is not a 'subcontractor' under the Miller Act unless there is a substantial delegation of the prime contractor's contractual obligations.
• Adams Homes OF Nw. Fla., Inc. v. Cranfill
  7 So. 3d 611· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-04-03 ·cited 8×
  Adams Homes appeals the trial court's denial of workers' compensation immunity in a tort suit brought by an employee of a materialman who was injured on a construction site. The court holds that materialmen are excluded from the definition of statutory employees under Florida law
• United States v. AETNA Cas. Ins. Co.
  908 F.2d 375· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Schultz was a subcontractor for the purposes of the Miller Act, entitling Morris to recover on the payment bond.
• Royal Indem. Co. v. Kenny Constr. Co.
  528 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the City's negligence in relocating pipes outside the K-4 contract caused the property damage, and therefore neither the Venture nor its insurer, Royal, were liable under the contract's indemnity or insurance provisions. The award of attorney's fees to the Ven
• Inryco, Inc. v. Eatherly Constr. Co. & Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
  793 F.2d 767· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 2×
  A material supplier to a subcontractor is not a protected party under performance and payment bonds for public highway projects, as they do not qualify as a subcontractor or remote subcontractor under Tennessee law.
• RC Aluminum Indus., Inc. v. Regions Bank
  127 So. 3d 881· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-12-04 ·cited 1×
  RC Aluminum appealed the dismissal of its complaint seeking an equitable lien on construction loan proceeds and unjust enrichment against Regions Bank. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly considered facts outside the complaint when ruling on the
• Ciceron v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
  163 So. 3d 609· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-04-15
  Wilson and Rosie Cicerón appealed a summary judgment in favor of Sunbelt Rentals, an equipment rental company that rented scissor lifts to subcontractors on a construction site where Wilson was injured. The court reversed, holding that Sunbelt was not a subcontractor entitled to
• The United States for the Use & Benefit of Conveyor Rental & Sales Co. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  981 F.2d 448· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-10
  The court held that the Tribe was a materialman, not a subcontractor, and therefore Conveyor Rental was not protected by the Miller Act payment bond.
• J. W. Cooper Constr. Co., Inc. v. Pub. Hous. Admin.
  390 F.2d 175· 10th Cir.· 1968-02-09
  The court held that the supplier of kitchen cabinets was a subcontractor under the Miller Act, not a remote materialman, because they performed a specific part of the prime contract's requirements.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aluminum Co. of Am.
  142 F.2d 663· 3d Cir.· 1944-04-28
  The court held that suppliers of materials to prime contractors for naval construction are considered 'subcontractors' under the Vinson Act, and thus subject to its profit limitations.