AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
APAC-FLORIDA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
American Home Assurance Company appeals a summary judgment awarding APAC-Florida, Inc. on claims under public construction payment and performance bonds. The court held that a surety cannot invoke the shorter statute of limitations in section 255.05(2) when the bond fails to comply with mandatory notice provisions in section 255.05(6), instead subjecting the bond to the longer limitations period in section 95.11.
A surety may not invoke the notice requirements and shorter statute of limitations of section 255.05(2) if it agrees to issue a bond that fails to comply with the mandatory notice provisions of section 255.05(6). Instead, the bond is governed by the longer statute of limitations in section 95.11, effectively treating it as a common law bond.
[1] A surety that agrees to be surety on a public construction bond failing to comply with mandatory notice provisions cannot invoke the shorter statute of limitations provid…
[2] A public construction bond that violates mandatory notice provisions is governed by the longer statute of limitations in section 95.11, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a surety may not invoke the notice requirements and the shorter statute of limitations provided in section 255.05(2), Florida Statutes (1995), if it agrees to be surety on a bond that fails to comply with the mandatory notice provisions in section 255.05(6)”
Establishes the core holding that non-compliant bonds cannot benefit from shortened statutory periods
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Home issued payment and performance bonds on the Department of Transportation's standard contract bond form 375-020-27 to APAC-Florida, Inc. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The defendant, American Home Assurance Company, appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, APAC-Florida, Inc. The judgment enforces the claims of APAC-Florida, Inc., against public construction payment and performance bonds issued by American Home. The payment and performance bonds were issued on the Department of Transportation’s standard contract bond form 375-020-27. This court has held that a surety may not invoke the notice requirements and the shorter statute of limitations provided in section 255.05(2), Florida Statutes (1995), if it agrees to be surety on a bond that fails to comply with the mandatory' notice provisions in section 255.05(6). See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials, 826 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
If a bond violates the mandatory notice provisions, it is governed by the longer statute of limitations in section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1995). Although this result is sometimes described as treating the bond as a “common law bond,” in this situation, it merely subjects the bond to the more general statute of limitations because the bond did not contain the notice essential to invoke the more favorable requirements. We do not believe that the surety should be entitled to force claimants to participate in a jury trial on the issue of whether the omission in the bond misled them when the surety could have avoided the entire issue by requiring a bond in compliance with the notice provisions. We certify that our decision conflicts with that of the Fifth District in Florida Crushed Stone Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 815 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2005)…ovision and did not expand the scope of coverage beyond the statutory requirement). . The Second District has repeated its dedication to the conclusions within the decision below in its subsequent American Home 4s-surance Co. v. APAC-Florida, Inc., 834 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DuCA 2003), decision. . Further, the dissent’s reliance on various concurring opinions by United States Supreme Court Justice Scalia is most questionable and to no substantive avail since such opinions are not binding precedent either. See…
-
Apac-Florida, Inc. v. Onebeacon Ins. Co., Inc., 888 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…n be made on both sides of the question now before us. Compare American Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 826 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), review granted, 842 So. 2d 842 (Fla.2003), and American Home Assurance Co. v. Apac-Florida, Inc., 834 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed, No. SC03-207 (Fla. Feb. 6, 2003), with Florida Crushed Stone Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 815 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In our view, the requirement to file the bon…
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Apac-Florida, Inc., 913 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2005)…PER CURIAM. We have for review American Home Assurance Co. v. APAC-Florida, Inc., 834 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which relied upon American Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 826 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), review granted, 842 So. 2d 842 (Fla.2003), which was pending review in this Court, and certified conflict with Florida Cru…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Crushed Stone Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 815 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 826 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)