AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES SALES CORP. OF ORLANDO, A FLORIDA CORPORATION ET AL., 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.
American Fire and Casualty Company, a surety on a performance bond, appeals a judgment in favor of Charles Sales Corp., which supplied labor and materials to the principal contractor. The court reversed, holding that the surety's liability was limited to the obligee (contractor) and did not extend to third parties like material suppliers, and that a labor and materials payment bond statute did not apply to this sub-contractor bond.
The surety is liable only to the obligee (the contractor) under the unambiguous terms of the bond and cannot be held liable to third parties who supplied materials to the principal contractor. The labor and material payment bond statute does not have the effect of expanding a performance bond to cover claims by non-lien claimants.
“By the terms of the bond, the surety was bound only to the contractor, and the unambiguous provisions of the bond may not be construed and expanded to cover the claim of one furnishing labor and materials to the sub-contractor.”
Establishes the core holding that the surety's liability is limited to the obligee (contractor) and cannot be extended to third-party material suppliers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA sub-contractor gave a performance bond to a contractor in connection with a sub-contract to furnish and install plumbing, heating, air conditioning,…
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 Labor And Material Payment Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
After a trial before the court without a jury, judgment was entered for appellee, Charles Sales Corp. of Orlando (plaintiff), against appellant (defendant-surety) on a contract bond. The bond was given by a sub-contractor (the principal on the bond) to the contractor (the obligee on the bond) in connection with a sub-contract for furnishing and installing a complete and functioning system of plumbing, heating, air conditioning, utilities and sanitary sewers for a “Low Rent Housing Project * * * for the Housing Authority of the City of Cocoa. * * *”
Alleging that it had supplied labor and materials to the sub-contractor and that there was a substantial balance due it, the plaintiff brought an action against the surety, the sub-contractor and its president. However, on this appeal we are concerned only with the liability of the surety to the plaintiff on the contract bond, which was conditioned as follows :
“Now, Therefore, the condition of this obligation is such, that if the Principal shall faithfully perform the contract on his part, free and clear of all liens arising out of claims for labor and materials entering into the construction, and indemnify and save harmless the Obligee from all loss, cost or damage which he may suffer by reason of the failure so to do, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.”
It is to be noted that the bond involved is not one which Chapter 255.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., requires a contractor (as distinguished from a sub-contractor) to give to a public authority in connection with a contract for public buildings or improvements. On the contrary, the bond was given by a sub-contractor to the contractor, and the provisions of Chapter 255.05 are wholly irrelevant in construing the bond and in determining the liability of the surety thereon.
By the terms of the bond, the surety was bound only to the contractor, and the unambiguous provisions of the bond may not be construed and expanded to cover the claim of one furnishing labor and materials to the sub-contractor. Curtiss-Bright Ranch Company v. Selden Cypress Door Company, 1926, 91 Fla. 354, 107 So. 679; American Surety Company of New York v. Smith, 1930, 100 Fla. 1012, 130 So. 440; American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp., Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 435.
The appellee contends that “Chapter 627.0905 [Florida Statutes] has the effect of making all bonds labor and material payment bonds as well as performance bonds.” However, the appellee claimed no lien, and in American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp., supra, the court held that the statute was not subject to the suggested construction, saying:
“ * * * The legislative intent which we gather from the statute when construed as a part of the insurance code was to require uniformity of contractors’ ■bonds by requiring such bonds to be in one or the other alternative and fixing the amount of each, but it did not purport to and does not have the effect of writing into such bonds a requirement that the bond shall be for the use and benefit of persons who are not entitled to a lien un*672der Ch. 84, Fla.Stats., as in effect prior to October 1, 1963.”
As the record fails to support the claim of the appellee on the bond, the judgment against the appellant is reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
WALDEN, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ms of its principal’s subcontractors and materialmen as third party beneficiaries under the bond. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co., 206 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); American Fire and Cas. Co. v. Charles Sales Corp., 203 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Estero Mfg. and Builders Supply, Inc., 174 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). . In view of our disposition of the case, we need not determine the validity or effect of purported assignments of the construction con…
-
United Bonding Ins. Co. v. M. D. Moody & Sons, Inc., 213 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…ssary to decide this point. Affirmed. WIGGINTON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. . Illinois Surety Company v. John Davis Company, 244 U.S. 376, 37 S.Ct. 614, 61 L.Ed. 1206 (1917). . American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Charles Sales Corp. of Orlando, 203 So. 2d 670 (Fla.App.4th, 1967). . American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 171 So. 2d 435 (Fla.App.2d 1965).…
-
Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Charles Sales Corp. of Orlando, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 670, cert. denied, Fla.1968, 210 So. 2d 866; State of Florida for Use and Benefit of Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Wesley Construction Co., S.D.Fla.1970, 316 F.Supp. 490, aff’d, 5th Cir.1972, 453 F. 2d 1366.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. R. Nelson Smith in Bankr. for Jacksonville Marble & Tile Co., 100 Fla. 1012 (Fla. 1930)
- Curtiss-Bright Ranch Co. v. Selden Cypress Door Co., 91 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1926)
- Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 171 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)