Surety Liability

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

• United States v. Emps. Mut. Cas. Co.
  226 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-02 ·cited 4×
  A surety is liable for interest on its bond from the date of the principal's default, even if the exact amount of loss was not determined until later.
• Houston Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. E. E. Cloer Gen. Contractor, Inc.
  217 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1954-12-22 ·cited 4×
  A performance bond conditioned on the faithful performance of a contract requiring the principal to "furnish all materials and perform all work" implies a promise to pay for those materials, making the surety liable for the subcontractor's unpaid material costs.
• Doyle E. Carlton v. Detroit Fid. & Sur. Co.
  112 Fla. 644· Fla.· 1933-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a demurrer judgment favoring a surety company on an official bond, holding that a county commissioner's unlawful release of securities protecting county deposits constituted a breach of his official duties for which the surety was liable. The ca
• Raney v. Baron
  1 Fla. 327· Fla.· 1847-01-01 ·cited 4×
  A surety on an appeal bond challenged a judgment for damages exceeding the bond's condition. The Florida Supreme Court held that a surety's liability is strictly limited to the terms of the bond obligation and reversed the judgment because the lower court refused to instruct the
• United States v. DOS Cabezas Corp.
  995 F.2d 1486· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-21 ·cited 3×
  A suit to recover a deficiency debt after foreclosure is an action for money damages founded upon a contract, subject to the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a). The automatic bankruptcy stay does not toll the limitations period for actions against non-debtor co
• W.S.A. Inc. v. Stratton
  680 F. Supp. 375· S.D. Fla.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 3×
  Delay damages are not recoverable under a payment bond executed pursuant to Florida Statute section 713.23, as the bond and statute limit liability to labor and materials.
• Reliance Ins. Co. v. Dade Cnty.
  230 So. 2d 21· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-12-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the surety was liable on the performance bond for the costs incurred by the county to complete subdivision improvements, including interest and attorney's fees, as the bond's terms were consistent with statutory requirements and the county followed proper proc
• Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Simpson
  151 Fla. 564· Fla.· 1942-10-13 ·cited 3×
  Standard Accident Insurance Company, as surety on a construction bond, sought reimbursement from the principal Simpson for losses paid on a bond. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and judgment for Simpson, holding that the evidence was insufficient and that Simp
• Fla. School-Book Depository, Inc. v. Liddon
  114 Fla. 149· Fla.· 1934-03-05 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against a plaintiff who sued a surety on a bond. The court found the bond was unenforceable because a material blank space was left unfilled, preventing the court from determining the surety's intended obligations.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. City of Ocala
  111 Fla. 209· Fla.· 1933-06-28 ·cited 3×
  Continental Casualty Company appealed a lower court order overruling its demurrer to the City of Ocala's bill seeking reformation of a construction surety bond. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City lacked standing to seek reformation because it was not a part
• Sanchez v. AN Luxury Imports OF Pembroke Pines, Inc.
  216 So. 3d 723· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-04-12 ·cited 2×
  Juan Sanchez purchased a vehicle from a Mercedes-Benz dealership and later discovered it had been in an accident not disclosed by the dealer. After arbitration awarded him $3,500 for a FDUTPA violation, he sought attorney's fees against both the dealer (ANL) and its surety (Safec
• Per Jonas Ingvar Gustafsson and Tressa D. Stiles v. AID Auto Brokers, Inc.
  212 So. 3d 405· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-01-25 ·cited 2×
  Gustafsson and Stiles appealed orders enforcing a Mediated Settlement Agreement against Great American Insurance Company (GAI) for attorney's fees. The court held that GAI was not obligated to pay attorney's fees under the MSA because the fee provision expressly limited recovery
• Bonds v. Escambia Cnty. Clerk OF Court
  13 So. 3d 109· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-05-22 ·cited 2×
  A bail bondsman sought review of a trial court order denying his motion to set aside a bond forfeiture after the defendant failed to appear. The court reversed, holding that the state's addition of a new trafficking charge in an amended information materially changed the bond con
• Halifax Paving, Inc. v. United States Fire Ins.
  481 F. Supp. 2d 1331· M.D. Fla.· 2007-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the letter agreement between Halifax and VCC constituted payment for the invoices, and therefore U.S. Fire, as surety, was not liable on the payment bond for those amounts.
• Surety v. State
  846 So. 2d 1154· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-04-10 ·cited 2×
  A surety company was held liable for bond forfeiture after surrendering an accused to law enforcement in response to a second charge, despite lacking a formal certificate of surrender. The court reversed, holding that the surety was legally absolved from liability because the add
• Mycon Constr. Corp. v. Bd. OF Regents OF the State OF Fla.
  755 So. 2d 154· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-01 ·cited 2×
  Sureties on a performance bond are not liable for delay damages unless the bond explicitly provides for such damages.
• Amwest Sur. Ins. Co. v. State
  721 So. 2d 408· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-11-20 ·cited 2×
  A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion for rehearing directed at an order granting relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), which is a final, appealable order not subject to rehearing.
• OLD Republic Sur. Co. v. Reischmann
  713 So. 2d 434· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-06-03 ·cited 2×
  Old Republic Surety Company appealed a probate court judgment requiring it to pay attorneys' fees and costs exceeding the $50,000 penal sum of a guardianship bond. The court affirmed, holding that under Nichols v. Preferred National Insurance Co., a surety can be liable for attor
• Samhat v. Cocoa Masonry OF Pinellas Cnty., Inc.
  567 So. 2d 450· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-08-29 ·cited 2×
  Property owner Samhat and surety Reliance Insurance were liable on mechanic's lien claims brought by subcontractors, but the judgment against Samhat personally on the lien foreclosure claim was reversed because a transfer bond released him from personal liability.
• Bentley Constr. Dev. & Eng'g Inc. v. ALL Phase Elec. & Maint., Inc.
  562 So. 2d 800· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-30 ·cited 2×
  A subcontract payment provision stating that the subcontractor shall receive payment within ten working days after the contractor receives payment from the owner is ambiguous and does not constitute a clear risk-shifting clause, so the contractor's obligation to pay arose within
• Neeley v. Bankers Tr. Co. OF Tex.
  848 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 2×
  A surety is not bound on a supersedeas bond when the appellate court reverses all monetary damages and remands for a new trial.
• United States Ex Rel. Carlisle Constr. Co. v. Coastal Structures, Inc.
  689 F. Supp. 1092· M.D. Fla.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that transportation and return charges, as well as post-termination rental payments, were recoverable under the Miller Act because they were necessary for performance and contemplated by the parties, and plaintiff reasonably mitigated damages.
• Pac. Lining Co., Inc. v. Algernon-Blair Constr. Co. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  819 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 'pay when paid' clauses in subcontracts do not constitute suspensive conditions under Louisiana law, making general contractors and their sureties liable for full payment to subcontractors.
• Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welf. Tr. Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co. of Fla.
  658 F. Supp. 305· S.D. Fla.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 2×
  Contractors and their sureties, who are not signatories to a collective bargaining agreement, are not considered 'employers' under ERISA, and therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking contributions to employee benefit funds.
• Luciano Morra v. State
  460 So. 2d 507· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-12-11 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's failure to appear at trial does not automatically constitute thwarting prosecution under Florida law when the surety surrenders the defendant within thirty days and the defendant is subsequently tried and convicted.
• United States v. Noe Ervey Garcia
  724 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a temporary revocation of a bond, followed by a hearing and reinstatement, does not terminate the surety's liability, and the surety's obligation remains unchanged.
• In re Endeco, Inc. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  718 F.2d 879· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bonding company's liability on renewed trustee bonds is cumulative for each year the bond was in force, as the limiting provisions in continuation certificates were not part of the contract.
• Tate v. AETNA Ins. Co.
  385 So. 2d 709· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's actions did not prejudice the surety's indemnity rights, and therefore the surety was not released from liability.
• Thomas v. Reliance Ins. Co.
  617 F.2d 122· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the surety bond did not cover losses from American's failure to pay for grain purchased from claimants, as this did not fall within the statutory definition of a public grain warehouse's obligations. The court also affirmed the indemnitor's liability.
• The Bd. OF Educ. Cent. Sch. Dist. NO. 2 OF the Towns OF Bedford v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  453 F.2d 264· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-15 ·cited 2×
  A surety is not automatically absolved of liability on a performance bond when the underlying construction contract is found illegal due to violations of the competitive bidding statute.
• Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Commodity Credit Corp. & the United States
  430 F.2d 916· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The surety is liable under Bond A for the unsatisfied portion of CCC's quantity shortage claim, and the value of the grain is determined as of the time of the receiver's appointment.
• Resolute Ins. Co. v. State
  238 So. 2d 520· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-08-11 ·cited 2×
  Resolute Insurance Company appealed a forfeiture judgment on a bail bond after the principal failed to appear in court. The court affirmed the forfeiture, holding that the distinction between "attempt to utter a forged instrument" (in the original bond) and "uttering a forged ins
• Home Owners Ins. Co. v. Charles Sales Corp. OF Orlando
  222 So. 2d 37· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-04-01 ·cited 2×
  Home Owners Insurance Company appeals a judgment against it on a surety bond guaranteeing payment for materials furnished by Charles Sales Corp. to the principal contractor. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the surety's liability was not discharged by the principal's
• Fed. Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  216 So. 2d 487· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-12-11 ·cited 2×
  Federal Insurance Company, as surety for a general contractor, appealed a summary judgment in favor of subcontractor Krauss Air Conditioning, which sought recovery for costs incurred when the general contractor replaced a destroyed temperature panel. The court affirmed, holding t
• Rose v. Grable
  203 So. 2d 648· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-10-31 ·cited 2×
  Philip Rose appealed a jury verdict finding him unable to recover the unpaid balance of a promissory note from Phyllis L. Grable, who had endorsed the note individually. The court affirmed, holding that Rose's voluntary compromise with the principal obligor (Grable's Bakery, Inc.
• The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Circle Equip. Co.
  377 F.2d 160· D.C. Cir.· 1967-04-03 ·cited 2×
  A premature suit under D.C. Code § 804 is voidable, not void, and becomes valid if the six-month preference period for the District expires without suit, and summary judgment is proper if materials were furnished and accepted for the public contract, not necessarily incorporated.
• Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. Md. Cas. Co.
  374 F.2d 839· 1st Cir.· 1967-03-31 ·cited 2×
  A materialman who supplied goods to a subcontractor cannot recover from the surety on the prime contractor's performance bond if the bond explicitly limits liability to those with contracts directly with the principal.
• Fla. Ins. Exch. v. Adler
  174 So. 2d 75· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-04-13 ·cited 2×
  Florida Insurance Exchange appeals an order directing the state insurance commissioner to sell its deposited securities to satisfy a judgment on a forthcoming bond issued in an attachment proceeding. The court reversed, holding that the bond was not governed by the attachment sta
• Dixon v. Travelers Indem. Co.
  174 So. 2d 53· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-04-13 ·cited 2×
  An administrator de bonis non appealed the dismissal of his devastavit action against a surety for mismanagement of an estate by the predecessor executrix. The court held that while the surety could not be sued alone without joining the governor as the real party in interest unde
• Nickell v. United States for the use & benefit of Tex. Vitrified Pipe Co.
  340 F.2d 117· 10th Cir.· 1965-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an IRS levy on contract proceeds for a contractor's taxes does not constitute a defense for the contractor and surety against unpaid materialmen suing under the Miller Act.
• Lucerne Packing Co. v. PAN Am. Sur. Co.
  140 So. 2d 135· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a dismissal order, holding that the plaintiff's good faith claim for an amount exceeding the circuit court's minimum jurisdictional threshold was sufficient for jurisdiction, even if the ultimate recovery might be less.
• THE Century Indem. Co. v. United States
  236 F.2d 752· D.C. Cir.· 1956-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Government's cancellation of the contract, coupled with its subsequent payments for material in process, discharged the surety's liability for those payments because the Government had a duty to apply those payments to liquidate the advance payments.
• Hall v. Hanford
  66 So. 2d 474· Fla.· 1953-07-17 ·cited 2×
  Hall v. Hanford concerns whether an amended complaint alleging property boundary encroachments sufficiently states a cause of action for injunctive relief, and whether a bond from the first injunction proceeding can secure a second injunction. The Florida Supreme Court held that
• United States v. ST. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co.
  194 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1952-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the surety remains liable for unpaid customs duties and taxes even if the entry is not liquidated within three years of importation, provided demand is made.
• Hardee v. Myakka Fruit Farms Co.
  84 Fla. 628· Fla.· 1922-11-23 ·cited 2×
  In a distress for rent proceeding, the trial court rendered judgment against the defendant and sureties on a bond without the jury finding the value of the distrained property as statutorily required. The Florida Supreme Court held that the judgment and execution against the sure
• Webster v. Wailes
  35 Fla. 267· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 2×
  Webster sued surety Wailes on an appeal bond filed by the railway company in Webster's injury judgment case. The core issue was whether a surety on an appeal bond is bound when the principal (the corporation) failed to execute the bond with its corporate seal, rendering the princ
• Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Marathon
  825 F. Supp. 2d 1276· S.D. Fla.· 2011-11-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Area 7 Change Order constituted a cardinal change to the original contract, relieving Hartford of its obligations under the performance bond for that change order.
• ST. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Dep't of State
  581 So. 2d 976· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-21 ·cited 1×
  St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company appealed a trial court judgment finding it liable as surety under a performance bond issued for the state. The appellate court affirmed the liability finding but reversed and remanded the damages award, holding that the surety's liability should
• K-W Indus. v. Nat'l Sur. Corp.
  855 F.2d 640· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 1×
  The Miller Act does not preempt state unfair insurance practices laws as applied to sureties of Miller Act bonds.
• Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Oakhurst Homes, Inc.
  512 So. 2d 1156· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-09-25 ·cited 1×
  A surety bond company cannot be held liable for judgments exceeding the bond amount; the trial court erred in imposing joint and several liability beyond the bond's face value.