AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A FLORIDA 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 Casualty Company, as surety on a subcontractor's performance bond, appeals a judgment against it for amounts paid by a general contractor after the subcontractor defaulted. The court affirmed the judgment with a minor correction to the interest computation.
The surety's liability on the performance bond was not discharged by the alleged retention and payment conditions, nor by the subcontract modifications. The judgment was affirmed except for a correction to the interest calculation from $1,573.16 to $1,437.15.
“The defendant surety on a subcontractor's performance bond appeals from a final judgment in favor of the general contractor, plaintiff below, who upon default of the subcontractor exercised the right under the contract to complete the work.”
Establishes the basic nature of the case: a surety bond dispute arising from a subcontractor's default
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA general contractor (Richardson) contracted with a subcontractor for work with an agreed price of $119,216.00, secured by a performance bond issued b…
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 Subcontractor Default cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant surety on a subcontractor’s performance bond appeals from a final judgment in favor of the general contractor, plaintiff below, who upon default of the subcontractor exercised the right under the contract to complete the work. Included in the judgment is an item of $1,573.-16 for interest.
The appellant surety contends: (1) That the judgment is erroneous because it was a condition of the performance bond that the plaintiff (general contractor) retain 15% of the agreed price for the work contemplated by the subcontract; that prior to default plaintiff paid the subcontractor $108,014.72 on account of the agreed contract price of $119,216.00, which was also the penal amount of the bond, and after default, without notice to or consent of the surety, paid an additional sum of $17,728.47 to a third party on account of an obligation incurred by the subcontractor incident to the work and that consequently the total amount paid to or for the subcontractor’s account exceeded 85% of the subcontract price, thus demonstrating that the contractor did not retain 15% of the subcontract price as provided by the subcontract and thereby breaching a material condition of the bond on which appellant’s liability depended. (2) That the judgment is erroneous because changes were made in the subcontract, reducing the contract price from $119,216.00 to $117,283.90, but were not agreed to in writing between plaintiff and the subcontractor as required by the contract. (3) That the court erred in computing the interest item included in the final judgment in that the correct amount is $1,437.15 instead of $1,573.16; and appellee concedes that the judgment is in error to that extent.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and find that except with respect to said computation of interest the appellant has failed to demonstrate error. Accordingly, it is ordered that upon plaintiff entering a remittitur for the difference between the amount of interest stated in the *923final judgment and the correct amount thereof as hereinabove indicated, the judgment appealed be and it is affirmed.
ANDREWS, Acting C. J., WALDEN, J., and STURGIS, WALLACE E., Associate Judge, concur.