Surety Liability

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

• Augusta Iron & Steel Works, Inc. v. Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau
  835 F.2d 855· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 132×
  The court held that material issues of fact regarding waiver preclude summary judgment on the surety's liability for interest, but affirmed the finding of good faith.
• Nat'l Sur. Co. v. Williams
  74 Fla. 446· Fla.· 1917-12-08 ·cited 107×
  In this surety bond case, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a judgment against National Surety Company for losses resulting from the fraud and dishonesty of bank cashier Alonzo Wilder. The court affirmed that the bond should be construed liberally in favor of the insured bank, rej
• OBS Co., Inc. v. Pace Constr. Corp.
  558 So. 2d 404· Fla.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 94×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a subcontractor may recover payment from a surety under a labor and material payment bond even when the general contractor conditions final payment to the subcontractor on the owner's payment to the contractor. The court found the payment condi
• 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.
• Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  945 So. 2d 1216· Fla.· 2006-12-21 ·cited 76×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered five certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit regarding whether surety bond obligees can sue sureties for bad faith under Florida's insurance statutes. The Court held that obligees are "insureds" with standing to sue for bad faith refusal t
• Alford v. Leonard
  88 Fla. 532· Fla.· 1925-01-05 ·cited 62×
  This case addresses two key issues in a timber-cutting contract dispute: (1) whether certain items like a trailer and fertilizer could be charged against timber-cutting credits, and (2) whether sureties on a forthcoming bond in an equitable foreclosure proceeding could be held li
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck
  594 So. 2d 280· Fla.· 1992-02-06 ·cited 60×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that privity between an owner and subcontractor can be established either through the traditional Harper Lumber test (owner's knowledge and assumption of payment obligation) or where the owner and contractor share a common identity, thus excusing th
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. D. N. Morrison Constr. Co., Inc.
  99 Fla. 309· Fla.· 1930-02-13 ·cited 46×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a surety on a release bond in a mechanic's lien action may not be joined as a defendant in an equity suit to enforce the lien directly. Instead, the lienor must first obtain a personal decree in equity against the owner, and then pursue a separ
• Thomas E. Stribling et ux. v. Hart
  20 Fla. 235· Fla.· 1883-06-01 ·cited 41×
  Stribling sought to recover money due from a guardian's estate and his sureties. The trial court entered a decree by default against defendants who failed to answer after their demurrer was overruled. The court reversed an order reopening the decree, holding that once a final dec
• United States v. Zara Contracting Co., Inc.
  146 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1944-12-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a contractor who breaches a subcontract is liable for the reasonable value of the work performed and equipment used, not limited by the contract price, and that the surety on the Miller Act bond is liable for such amounts.
• SAM MacRi & Sons, Inc. v. U. S. A. for the Use of Oaks Constr. Co.
  313 F.2d 119· 9th Cir.· 1963-01-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that certain work constituted 'extras' and was payable on a quantum meruit basis, and that Macri waived certain subcontract provisions regarding extras.
• The J. B. McCrary Co. & Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Dade Cnty.
  80 Fla. 652· Fla.· 1920-11-03 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company against J.B. McCrary Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, holding that while Chapter 6867 extends protection to laborers and material suppliers in public works contracts, the bond i
• Marshall v. W & L Enters. Corp.
  360 So. 2d 1147· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-07-25 ·cited 30×
  The court reversed a trial court ruling that a mobile home dealer's surety was not liable for attorney's fees incurred by consumers in a successful action against the dealer for violating Florida's "Little FTC Act." The court held that attorney's fees, being a statutory component
• United States v. The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  402 F.2d 893· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that equitable estoppel can apply to prevent a surety from pleading the Miller Act's statute of limitations when its conduct misled the claimant into believing the claim would be paid.
• Cent. Steel Erection Co. v. Merrill F. Will and Karl K. Larsen
  304 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1962-05-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a subcontractor could recover on a quantum meruit basis for extra work when no agreement was reached on compensation, and that the Miller Act surety was liable for such recovery. The court also recalculated the award due to inadequate findings.
• Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Murphy
  151 Fla. 151· Fla.· 1942-07-17 ·cited 30×
  American Surety Company sought to file a claim against the Murphy estate for $1,100 paid on a replevin bond in 1940, eight months after the statute of non-claims expired in 1938. The Florida Supreme Court held that contingent claims must be presented within the statutory eight-mo
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  426 F.2d 729· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-13 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge argued that the bank had sufficient notice of the dishonest and fraudulent acts of its officer, Steiner, to require notification to the sureties. The dissent contended that the majority improperly narrowed the scope of Steiner's acts considered and that the D
• United States v. Wiring, Inc.
  646 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support a finding that General Electric Supply Co. knowingly misapplied funds received from the subcontractor, thus reversing the lower court's decision to reallocate those funds.
• United States for Use of Edward E. Morgan Co., Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co.
  147 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1945-02-12 ·cited 25×
  A surety on a Miller Act bond is not liable for the rental value of equipment that becomes idle due to a government order, as such idle time does not constitute 'labor and material' within the meaning of the Act and bond.
• Robinson v. Epping
  24 Fla. 237· Fla.· 1888-06-01 ·cited 25×
  Robinson appeals from a judgment on a bond given as surety for Hirschfelder's obligation to pay a sum found due in a chancery suit. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the lower court's jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of Hirschfelder's estate in Escambia County but reverse
• Pinellas Cnty. v. Robertson
  490 So. 2d 1041· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-06-27 ·cited 24×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside a bond estreature and discharge the surety's liability on a bail bond, despite the defendant being incarcerated in another state.
• C. A. Davis, Inc. v. City OF Miami
  400 So. 2d 536· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-06-23 ·cited 24×
  Davis, Inc. contracted with the City of Miami to landscape and tile a sidewalk but abandoned the project due to underground utility problems and tile issues. The City won on its counterclaim for breach of contract costs. The appellate court affirmed Davis's loss but reversed the
• United States for the Use of R. W. Vaught Co. v. F. D. Rich Co., Inc.
  439 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's findings regarding subcontractor performance and extra work were not clearly erroneous, but reversed the award of penalties and attorney's fees against the sureties for vexatious refusal to pay.
• Cont'l Cas. Co., Inc. v. Allsop Lumber Co., Inc.
  336 F.2d 445· 8th Cir.· 1964-08-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction over actions on Capehart Act payment bonds under 28 U.S.C. § 1352, and that service of process on individual defendants outside the state was valid. The court also found that the notice requirements of the bond were sa
• 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
• Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Sholtz
  123 Fla. 837· Fla.· 1935-02-11 ·cited 24×
  Fidelity & Deposit Company seeks to recover on an official bond of Frank Brown, former Clerk of Duval County Circuit Court, for funds allegedly misappropriated. The Florida Supreme Court holds that the State of Florida has priority to recover tax revenues collected by Brown from
• State v. All Fla. Sur. Co.
  59 So. 2d 849· Fla.· 1952-07-08 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a surety bond conditioned for appearance to answer a felony charge could not be estreated when the defendant failed to appear for a misdemeanor charge that was transferred to a different court. The court emphasized that the surety's liability i
• May v. Gamble
  14 Fla. 467· Fla.· 1874-04-01 ·cited 23×
  A promissory note is not a payment of a pre-existing debt unless there is an express agreement to receive it in payment or circumstances from which such an agreement can be inferred; here, the new notes were never delivered to or accepted by the plaintiff as payment, and the two
• Price v. RLI Ins. Co.
  914 So. 2d 1010· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-11-04 ·cited 22×
  The Prices appealed from summary judgment that denied them recovery under a surety bond issued for First Choice Auto Finance. They sought damages for wrongful repossession of their vehicle, but the court held they could not recover because Florida Finance, the assignee of the con
• Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v. State
  135 So. 2d 777· Fla. 1st DCA· 1961-12-21 ·cited 22×
  A surety company on bail bonds seeks reversal of forfeiture judgments after the principal, Harley Jiles Jordan, failed to appear in a Florida criminal court. The principal was arrested in South Carolina on federal charges while posted on bail in Florida, and the surety claims it
• Ingo v. Koch
  127 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1942-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the action against the sheriff and his deputies was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because their actions, even if malicious, were performed in their official capacity.
• Gato v. Warrington
  37 Fla. 542· Fla.· 1896-01-01 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed a judgment for the appellees, holding that the appellant failed to establish a claim against the sureties on a construction bond. Even if materialmen had a statutory lien, the appellant's improper payments to the contractor released the sureties from liability.
• Daubmyre v. Hunter
  106 Fla. 858· Fla.· 1932-09-30 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against a surety on a supersedeas bond, holding that the bond's condition to pay "all costs and damages" upon affirmance of an appeal included damages for use and occupation of premises during the pendency of the appeal. The court con
• Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Davis Water & Waste Indus., Inc.
  358 So. 2d 225· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-04-25 ·cited 19×
  American Fire & Casualty Co. challenged a trial court's rulings on mechanics lien requirements under Florida law. The court affirmed, holding that notice to owners is not required for lienors furnishing materials for subdivision improvements under § 713.04, and that a surety on a
• Sessions v. Willard
  126 Fla. 848· Fla.· 1937-01-15 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit by beneficiaries of an estate against an administrator and his bond surety for failure to account for and distribute estate assets. The court held that an administrator de bonis non who collects rents and othe
• Bushman Constr. Co. v. AIR Force Acad. Hous.
  327 F.2d 481· 10th Cir.· 1964-01-27 ·cited 18×
  Rental of equipment cannot form the basis for a lien under Colorado law, and a surety's obligation is extinguished if the principal's obligation is met.
• Kulhanjian v. Moomjian
  105 So. 2d 783· Fla.· 1958-10-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a partial reversal of a decree requiring an accounting and entry of a new decree is not an affirmance that obligates the surety on a supersedeas bond conditioned to satisfy the original decree or its modification.
• Am. Sur. Co. v. Geo. Wilson Hayden and Marion Elizabeth Hayden (Two Cases.)
  112 Fla. 17· Fla.· 1933-09-21 ·cited 18×
  American Surety Co. appealed from a judgment requiring it to pay former wards for misappropriated guardianship funds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the surety's liability but remanded to recalculate damages using compound interest on annual balances and to exclude interest a
• Bosnor v. TUG L.A. Barrios
  796 F.2d 776· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a bareboat charterer has a proprietary interest sufficient to recover economic losses, and that the Ryan doctrine's application in maritime property damage cases is superseded by comparative fault principles.
• United States For the Use & Benefit of Heller Elec. Co., Inc. v. William F. Klingensmith, Inc.
  670 F.2d 1227· D.C. Cir.· 1982-02-02 ·cited 17×
  A surety under the Miller Act is liable for delay damages incurred by a subcontractor, and when both parties to a construction contract cause delays, damages must be apportioned based on the extent of each party's fault.
• Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Gedney
  123 Fla. 703· Fla.· 1936-04-11 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed a judgment against a surety company on a bond posted in a divorce case. The bond, which included conditions beyond just preventing the defendant from leaving the state, was intended to secure compliance with court orders, including alimony and child support. Th
• Worden v. Hunt
  147 So. 2d 548· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-12-07 ·cited 16×
  The surety on a deputy sheriff's bond is liable only up to the penal sum of the bond, not for unlimited amounts, as the statute's title and context indicate the penal sum limits liability.
• Riley-Stabler Constr. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  396 F.2d 274· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-07 ·cited 15×
  Summary judgment for the supplier was properly granted because the surety failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the materials were supplied for the prosecution of the work.
• Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Charles Sales Corp. OF Orlando
  203 So. 2d 670· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-11-08 ·cited 15×
  American Fire and Casualty Company, a surety on a performance bond, appeals a judgment in favor of Charles Sales Corp., which supplied labor and materials to the principal contractor. The court reversed, holding that the surety's liability was limited to the obligee (contractor)
• United States v. Harvesters Grp., Inc.
  918 F.2d 915· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 14×
  The Miller Act allows a subcontractor to recover increased out-of-pocket costs caused by delay from the prime contractor's surety, and a 'no damages for delay' clause is unenforceable if the contractor fails to grant the agreed-upon time extension.
• VON Eng'g Co. v. R.W. Roberts Constr. Co., Inc.
  457 So. 2d 1080· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-09-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that common law indemnity principles, which bind a surety with notice to a judgment against the principal, apply to arbitration awards. Therefore, dismissal of the complaint was error.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. The United States
  490 F.2d 960· Ct. Cl.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 14×
  A surety company that voluntarily pays a contractor's taxes to prevent project shutdowns, even under pressure from the IRS, cannot claim duress to recover those payments, as the IRS was merely stating its legal rights.
• The United States v. Grubb
  358 F.2d 508· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-15 ·cited 14×
  A joint venturer with a government contractor is not a subcontractor entitled to recover against the surety on a Miller Act payment bond. The surety's cross-complaint against the joint venturer was barred by the Statute of Frauds.
• W. F. Thompson Constr. Co., Inc. v. Se. Palm Beach Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
  174 So. 2d 410· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-04-27 ·cited 14×
  The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment on a labor and material payment bond, holding that while certain provisions of the bond were invalid as repugnant to Florida statute, the notice requirement in the bond was reasonable and constituted a valid condition
• Waldie v. Steers Sand & Gravel Corp.
  151 F.2d 129· 2d Cir.· 1945-06-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that neither the tug, the charterer, nor the surety were liable for the damage to the barge, as no fault was proven against them.