Surety Liability

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

• Ex parte Mrs. Emma Harris
  81 Fla. 797· Fla.· 1921-06-04 ·cited 1×
  In this certiorari review, the Florida Supreme Court considered whether a replevin judgment was void where a married woman plaintiff later joined her husband as a party plaintiff, and where judgment was also rendered against sureties on the replevin bond. The Court held the judgm
• Escambia Cnty. Clerk of the Cir. Court & Comptroller v. Palmetto Sur. Corp.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-07-23
  A bond forfeiture may be discharged only on one of the four statutory bases specified in section 903.26(5), Florida Statutes, and only if the motion is filed within sixty days.
• Close Constr., LLC v. City of Riviera Beach Util. Special Dist.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-06-05
  A defendant is entitled to a setoff from a judgment when the plaintiff has settled with a jointly and severally liable party for the same damages, even if the settling party was not sued and the settlement was reached outside of litigation. The setoff statute applies to releases
• Taylor Indus. Constr., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-04-15
  A sub-subcontractor's dispute over a bonded-off construction lien for welding work resulted in summary judgment in favor of the sub-subcontractor against both the surety insurance company and the general contractor, with the court awarding $228,064.25 in attorneys' fees and $9,89
• Asphalt Paving Sys., Inc. v. S. States Pavement Markings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-14
  Asphalt Paving Systems contracted with Southern States to perform micro-surfacing work to repair roadway rumble stripes and sought payment for work on the entire length of road completed, while Southern States paid only for the specific seven-foot divot sections. The court found
• Belizaire v. City of Miami
  760 F. Supp. 1004· S.D. Fla.· 2013-04-16
  The court held that officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and that negligent retention claims under Florida law apply only to acts committed outside the scope of employment.
• Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. State of Fla. f/u/b/o Osceola Cnty. Clerk
  45 So. 3d 540· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-10-08
  Florida appellate court reversed a bond forfeiture judgment because the trial court reinstated the defendant's bond without the surety's consent, violating statutory requirements.
• Zsolt Fodor v. Geiszler
  958 So. 2d 446· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-05-04
  Zsolt Fodor, a judgment debtor who posted a cash supersedeas bond pending appeal, was ordered by the trial court to pay post-judgment liabilities as a 'surety' on the bond. The appellate court reversed, holding that a cash bond has no surety, any liability ended when the judgment
• Wassman v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
  797 So. 2d 626· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-10-12
  Wassman obtained a final county court judgment against Travelers for $22,453.52 based on a dishonored check. Travelers later filed an interpleader action in circuit court and sought to satisfy the judgment through deposit of bond funds into the registry. The appellate court rever
• Kalman v. World Omni Fin. Corp. & Courtesy Ins. Co.
  732 So. 2d 399· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-04-07
  The Kalmans appealed a judgment dismissing their breach of bond claim against World Omni and its surety Courtesy Insurance. The court affirmed, holding that the prejudgment replevin bond was void because the writ itself had been dissolved and the vehicle was never actually taken
• Cap. Bank v. MVB, Inc.
  683 So. 2d 1175· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-12-18
  Capital Bank's civil supersedeas bond could not be discharged before finalization of the reserved attorney's fee award, as the bond expressly conditioned discharge on payment of all fees and costs.
• Dealers Ins. Co. v. Haidco Inv. Enters., Inc.
  638 So. 2d 127· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-06-07
  Dealers Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment in favor of Haidco Investment Enterprises, a surety bond claimant, arising from an alleged breach by a motor vehicle dealer. The court reversed, holding that the surety was not bound by admissions made by the dealer in a settl
• Pappalardo Constr. Co. v. Buck
  630 So. 2d 682· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-01-26
  A surety's liability on a lien-transfer bond is limited to the face amount of the bond, and a supersedeas bond does not create an independent obligation to pay amounts exceeding that limit, especially when the underlying judgment is reversed in part.
• United States v. M.J. Kelley Corp.
  995 F.2d 656· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-15
  The court held that the Miller Act one-year limitations period was equitably tolled by the subcontractor's good-faith filing in a district court with proper subject matter jurisdiction, and that the sureties were bound by the arbitration award against the principal due to privity
• Coppenbarger Homes, Inc. v. Williamson
  611 So. 2d 33· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-22
  Coppenbarger Homes, a general contractor, posted a transfer bond to discharge a mechanics' lien filed by subcontractors Williamson and Ledbetter. The trial court awarded the subcontractors damages and attorney fees totaling $11,244.89, exceeding the $6,084.00 bond amount. The app
• United States v. Lacey
  982 F.2d 410· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-14
  The court held that res judicata does not bar the government from proceeding against a surety after obtaining a judgment against the principal, and that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to bond forfeiture proceedings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e)
• MAI Steel Serv. Inc. v. Blake Constr. Co.
  981 F.2d 414· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-30
  A subcontractor can recover increased labor and material costs caused by construction delays from a Miller Act surety, even if the general contractor is not at fault. A common law payment bond surety is also liable for such costs under state law.
• Cam-Ful Indus., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md.
  922 F.2d 156· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-04
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing cross-claims for lack of jurisdiction and in denying the subcontractor's claim for extra wood sheeting work, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
• In re Joplin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  882 F.2d 1507· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-11
  The court held that under pre-1980 law, income generated by an individual bankruptcy estate was subject to federal income tax, and the trustee had a duty to file a tax return.
• Va. Plastics Co. v. Biostim Inc.
  820 F.2d 76· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-29
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the district court's order holding the surety liable on the injunction bond, as the obligee failed to prove damages directly attributable to the injunction.
• United States Ex Rel. N.U., Inc. v. Gulf Ins.
  650 F. Supp. 557· S.D. Fla.· 1986-12-15
  A subcontractor is generally not bound by a disputes clause incorporated by reference into its subcontract unless expressly made applicable and waiving the Miller Act remedy.
• J.K. Tomlinson v. Sentry Eng'g & Constr., Inc.
  777 F.2d 918· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-20
  A performance bond must expressly obligate the surety to pay attorney's fees for recovery to be allowed under South Carolina law. The indemnity principle in Addy v. Bolton does not apply to a plaintiff seeking fees for breach of contract.
• United States v. Sentry Ins.
  774 F.2d 80· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-03
  The court held that Seaboard was entitled to the misapplication of funds defense, but Sentry's knowledge of the payment scheme created a factual dispute precluding summary judgment. The court also affirmed summary judgment for the sureties regarding funds West Chester allowed Cof
• United States v. Herberto Madrigal
  692 F.2d 445· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-10
  The court held that 6 U.S.C. § 15 does not apply to a surety's obligation on a bond forfeiture, and therefore the surety cannot satisfy its obligation with treasury bonds worth less than the face value of the bond.
• Fla. Bd. OF Regents v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md.
  416 So. 2d 30· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-06-30
  The court held that a payment and performance bond does not insure against latent defects discovered after substantial completion and acceptance of the building, and that the statute of limitations for claims under the bond had expired.
• United States v. Casey
  671 F.2d 975· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-01
  The court held that the surety defendants remained liable on the appearance bond despite the issuance of a superseding indictment and a plea agreement, as the bond language and circumstances indicated continued coverage.
• Malan-Dean Corp. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  615 F.2d 950· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-06
  The court held that a portion of the $300,000 from Change Order 'O' should have been credited to rewelding costs, and Exhibit T was admissible evidence.
• Mayson Lloyd Blouin and Carol D. Blouin v. Am. Liberty Ins. Co.
  375 So. 2d 326· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-07-10
  The court held that the trial court erred in awarding the entire bond proceeds to one claimant without allowing other potential claimants to be heard.
• Fabrizio & Martin v. Bd. OF Educ. Cent. Sch. Dist. NO. 2 OF the Towns OF Bedford
  523 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-09
  The court held that the contract was not void for violating public bidding laws, as the Board acted within its discretion in adjusting the bid price and the prior judicial decisions misapplied New York law to the facts. The court reversed and remanded for a determination of appro
• United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Stanford
  486 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1973-10-19
  The court held that the statute of limitations applicable to a surety's contractual liability, not the statute applicable to the principal's tort, governs the surety's obligation to a third party.
• Crown Constr. Co. v. Opelika Mfg. Corp.
  480 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-04
  The court held that the contract clause stating the bidder agrees to accept assignment of subcontracts was unilateral and did not obligate the owner to assign them. The surety's liability is limited by the bond amount.
• Schilt v. Duvall
  479 F.2d 1228· D.C. Cir.· 1973-05-30
  The court held that the trustee's unauthorized withdrawals of trust funds constituted prior defaults for which the surety was liable, and the order confirming the auditor's report did not discharge this liability.
• Dade Cnty. v. Desser & Garfield, Inc.
  30 Fla. Supp. 85· Dade Cty. Civ. Ct. Rec.· 1968-03-27
  Dade County sought recovery against a contractor and surety bonding company for costs incurred due to the contractor's failure to complete subdivision improvements. The court awarded summary judgment in favor of the county, including amounts for design, clerical, and legal expens
• Logan v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  208 So. 2d 131· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-03-08
  The Death on the High Seas Act is not the exclusive remedy for deaths on artificial islands; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act makes adjacent state law applicable as federal law.
• Golden Gate Mech. Contractors Ass'n v. Seaboard Sur. Co.
  389 F.2d 892· 9th Cir.· 1968-01-30
  The court held that the exoneration of injunction bonds operates prospectively and does not extinguish liability for damages sustained due to the injunction if the plaintiff was not entitled to it. The trial court's findings on liability and damages were supported by competent ev
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Robuck
  203 So. 2d 204· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-10-05
  National Union Fire Insurance Company appeals summary judgments awarding subcontractors recovery on a performance bond despite the principal's fraud in obtaining the bond. The court holds that fraud by the principal does not vitiate the surety's liability to innocent obligees who
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. The Pub. Bldg. Auth. OF the City OF Scottsboro
  381 F.2d 10· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-27
  The court held that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the owner because the contract did not require the owner to obtain the surety's consent before making progress payments to the contractor.
• Silberblatt v. Lambert Corp.
  371 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1967-01-10
  The court held that the surety (Travelers) is not liable due to untimely notice of default, but the general contractor (Silberblatt) is liable based on its guarantee of the subcontractor's debt.
• Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Schnell Livestock Mkt., Inc.
  354 F.2d 649· 8th Cir.· 1966-01-06
  The court held that the market agency bond did not apply to the transaction between Martin and Schnell because Martin was acting as a livestock dealer, not a market agent. The court denied the petition for rehearing.
• United States for the Use of E. A. White v. Thompson & Georgeson, Inc.
  346 F.2d 865· 9th Cir.· 1965-06-02
  A subcontractor's assignee stands in the assignor's shoes and is subject to offsets for completion costs and creditor settlements, and an assignee who affirmatively assumes obligations can be liable as a surety.
• Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Murray Plumbing & Heating Corp.
  330 F.2d 800· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-08
  A surety on a stop notice release bond is liable to the claimant, even if the claimant did not strictly follow the stop notice procedure, and is bound by a judgment against its principal obtained through arbitration.
• Am. Sur. Co. OF NEW York v. United States
  317 F.2d 652· 8th Cir.· 1963-05-28
  A surety is not released from its obligations under a performance bond due to lack of notice of default if the bond itself does not require such notice. Material variations in a subsequent contract do not preclude using the cost differential as damages if those variations did not
• NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Carlton Co., Inc.
  307 F.2d 881· 5th Cir.· 1962-09-18
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Carlton was a bona fide supplier of materials protected by the bond, and that the surety's motions were properly denied.
• United States v. Standard Accident Ins. Co.
  280 F.2d 445· 1st Cir.· 1960-07-21
  The court held that the statute of limitations for surety liability begins to run only from the statement of account by the General Accounting Office (GAO), not from an earlier statement by another department like the Navy.
• Warren v. Hall
  66 So. 2d 230· Fla.· 1953-07-10
  This case involves a plaintiff suing for false arrest, false imprisonment, and injury after being detained in a county jail. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding no error in the jury's verdict that the deputy sheriff was not liable, which in turn absolved the sh
• United States v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  139 F.2d 770· 4th Cir.· 1944-01-10
  The court held that a surety on a lost instrument bond is liable for losses incurred by the United States due to claims on original service certificates, even if the loss arose from a prior loan or a mistaken issuance of a duplicate certificate.
• Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Citizens Bank of Ashville
  134 F.2d 888· 6th Cir.· 1943-04-13
  The court held that the surety is liable on the bond for damages resulting from the dealer's fraudulent appropriation of securities, even if the fraudulent acts occurred out-of-state.
• Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Winters Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Dayton
  130 F.2d 5· 6th Cir.· 1942-06-29
  The surety on an administrator's bond is liable for the full amount determined due by the probate court, including unauthorized withdrawals, compensation, and interest, and is bound by state court judgments even if not a formal party.
• Corbusier v. Hughey
  118 F.2d 483· 10th Cir.· 1941-03-18
  The court held that the town treasurer and his surety were not liable for the dishonored bonds because the relevant double liability statute did not apply to the treasurer's actions, and the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Bd. of Bond Trs. of Special Rd. & Bridge Dist. No. 1 of Wash. Cnty.
  139 Fla. 78· Fla.· 1939-06-30
  Fidelity & Deposit Company appeals an order striking its answer to a bill of complaint seeking discovery and damages for loss of funds deposited in a failed bank. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that the surety bond's explicit exception for bank failures provides a su