SCOTT & SON ENGINEERING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TARAFA CONSTRUCTION, INC., TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, AND EDWARD RIBACHONEK, APPELLEES
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.
A dissenting opinion argues that a surety remains obligated on a bail bond even when the formal charges filed after the bond posting are more serious than the initial arrest charge, as long as the bond generally describes the offense.
The surety is obligated to produce the defendant in court on the trafficking charge filed in the information, even if it is a more serious offense than initially stated, because the bond form was sufficient to cover the charge.
[1] An unlicensed contractor is barred from recovering, either in law or in equity, for work performed on a public works project.
[2] The construction of water pipelines and underground facilities falls within the statutory definition of a "contractor" requiring a license.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants posted bond for a defendant charged with "Trafficking in Cocaine." The information subsequently filed charged the defendant with "Trafficki…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contractor Licensing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
We affirm the trial court’s final summary judgment determining that a subcontractor on a public works project is barred from suing the general contractor and its surety in connection with work the subcontractor performed to construct improvements in a public park. The trial court determined that because the subcontractor, Scott & Son, was unlicensed it could not recover, either in law or in equity, for its work. See § 489.128, Fla. Stat. (2003).
The subcontractor contends that it was not required to obtain a license because the general contractor was merely paying it to supply labor and equipment to repair and construct a water pipeline and perform excavation work. However, “Con tractor” is defined in section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes (2003) as follows:
“Contractor” means the person who is qualified for, and shall only be responsible for, the project contracted for and means ... the person who, for compensation, undertakes to, submits a bid to, or does himself or herself or by others construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract from, or improve any building or structure, including related improvements to real estate, for others ... and whose job scope is substantially similar to the job scope described in one of the subsequent paragraphs of this subsection.
The construction of water pipelines and underground facilities is within the job scope described in the statutory provisions. See § 489.105(3)(m) — (n), Fla. Stat. (2003). Here, Scott & Son undertook to construct, repair, and add improvements to real estate through its own employees. Therefore, Scott & Son was a contractor performing work for which a license was necessary.
Although there was a dispute as to whether the supervisor for the general contractor or a supervisor for Scott & Son was directing some of the work, the statute does not turn on the level of supervision of independent contractors. Only employees of a licensed contractor performing work within the scope of the license are exempt from the contracting requirements of the statute. § 489.103(2)(a) — (b), Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, independent contractors doing the same thing are not exempt.
We reject the remaining grounds for challenging the summary judgment.
GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.