NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF SOUTHERN INSULATION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

C. LEE AND LYNN CROSEWELL, D/B/A ARKO WELDING, AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 1966-06-17

No. 5726

SHANNON, Acting C. J., and DYKES, ROGER F., Associate Judge, concur.

188 So. 2d 54 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1966) Positive Treatment

Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

A Florida appellate court corrected its prior precedent to hold that sub-subcontractors who comply with statutory notice requirements are entitled to recover on public works bonds, though materialmen of sub-subcontractors remain excluded from coverage.

Holding

Sub-subcontractors who comply with the statutory notice requirements are entitled to recover on public works bonds. The court receded from its prior statement equating sub-subcontractors with materialmen of sub-subcontractors, which remain excluded from coverage.

Key Quotes

“we now conclude that sub-subcontractors who comply with the act are entitled to recover on such a bond”
States the core holding that sub-subcontractors have a right to recover on public works bonds if they follow statutory requirements.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

North Broward Hospital District, as assignee of Southern Insulation Corp., sued on a public works bond provided by contractor C. Lee and Lynn Crosewel…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Statutory Notice Requirements

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

SMITH, SHERMAN N., Jr., Associate Judge.

In City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hardrives Company, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 339, we held that a materialman of a sub-subcontractor is not within the coverage of a public works bond furnished by a contractor under Section 255.05, Fla.Stats. F.S.A.1 In the course of our opinion we inadvertently indicated that a sub-subcontractor also is not within the coverage of the act.2 In reliance upon our opinion the court below dismissed the appellant’s action on such a bond solely because it was a sub-subcontractor. Since we now conclude that sub-subcontractors who comply with the act are entitled to recover on such a bond,3 we expressly recede from so much of our prior opinion as expresses a contrary conclusion. We leave unchanged our prior decision as to materi-almen of sub-subcontractors.

Reversed.

SHANNON, Acting C. J., and DYKES, ROGER F., Associate Judge, concur.

. Referring to the federal Miller Act, upon which our act is based, the Supreme Court of the United States made the following statements in the leading case on the subject:

“The proviso of Section 2(a), which had no counterpart in the Heard Act, makes clear that the right to bring suit on a payment bond is limited to (1) those materialmen, laborers and subcontractors who deal directly with the prime contractor and (2) those ma-terialmen, laborers and sub-subcontractors who, lacking express or implied contractual relationship with the prime contractor, have direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor and who give the statutory notice of their claims to the prime contractor. To allow those in more remote relationships to recover on the bond would be contrary to the dear language of the proviso and to the expressed will of the framers of the Aet.5 Moreover, it would lead to the absurd result of requiring notice from persons in direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but not from more remote daimants.” MacEvoy v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 102, 107, 64 S.Ct. 890, 894, 88 L.Ed. 1163, 1166.

Footnote 5 of the Supreme Court’s opinion is as follows:

“ ‘A sub-subcontractor may avail himself of the protection of the bond by giving written notice to the contractor, but that is as far as the bill goes. It is’ not felt that more remote relationships ought to come within the purview of the bond.’ H.Rep. No. 1263 (74th Cong.lst Sess.) p. 3.”

See also Elmer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 5 Cir. 1960, 275 F.2d 89, 90: “Since the appellant was not a sub-contractor within the meaning of the Miller Act and did not have a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor, he cannot recover.”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miller Constr. Co., 355 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)

…een construed to limit recovery under a Section 255.05 bond to sub-subcontractors. William H. Gulsby, Inc. v. Miller Construction Co., 351 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); North Broward Hospital District ex rel. Southern Insulation Corp. v. Crosewell, 188 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Since the instant bond obviously enlarged upon the statutory language, it provided a broader coverage than does the statute. In United Bonding Insurance Co. v. City of Holly Hill, supra, a materialman sued the surety on a bond f…
William H. Gulsby, Inc. v. Miller Constr. Co., Inc., 351 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)

…or, that appellant was too remote and ordered the appellant’s complaint dismissed with prejudice citing our decisions in City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hardrives Company, 167 So. 2d 339 (Fla.2d DCA 1964) and North Broward Hospital District v. Crosewell, 188 So. 2d 54 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). This appeal follows from the entry of said order. We agree and affirm. It is apparent from the attachments to the complaint, that appellant Gulsby is, in fact, a sub-sub-sub-subcontractor. We are not unmindful of our own decisio…
Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. & Nat'l Constr. Corp. of Fla. v. Progress Supply, Inc., 389 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)

…Miller Construction Co. of Leesburg, 355 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); William H. Gulsby, Inc. v. Miller Construction Co. of Leesburg, 351 So. 2d 396 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); North Broward Hospital District ex rel. Southern Insulation Corp. v. Crosewell, 188 So. 2d 54 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); City of Fort Lauderdale ex rel. Bond Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Hardrives Co., 167 So. 2d 339 (Fla.2d DCA 1964) and Board of Public Instruction, Broward County ex rel. Monmouth Plumbing Supply Co. v. Rood Construction Co., 166 So. 2…

Authorities Cited

Clifford F. MacEVOY Co. v. United States for the use & benifit of Calvin Tomkins Co., 322 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1944)
City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Hardrives Co., 167 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction v. Rood Constr. Co., 166 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
Elmer v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 275 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1960)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw