WILLIAM H. GULSBY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MILLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., OF LEESBURG, 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.
William H. Gulsby, Inc. appealed the dismissal of its claim against a general contractor and surety for unpaid labor and materials supplied to sub-subcontractors on a public works project. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 255.05 protections extend only to direct suppliers to the contractor or first-tier subcontractors, not to more remote parties.
Section 255.05 provides protection only to claimants furnishing materials or labor directly to the contractor or his immediate subcontractors, not to more remote parties such as sub-sub-sub-subcontractors. The statute does not extend coverage to suppliers several tiers removed from the general contractor.
[1] Florida Statutes Section 255.05, which requires bonds for public construction projects, provides protection only to claimants furnishing materials or labor to the contrac…
[2] The protection afforded by Florida Statutes Section 255.05 does not extend to claimants who are more remote than a subcontractor, such as a sub-sub-sub-subcontractor.
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 intelligence“the passage of Section 255.05 by the Florida legislature was for the broad general purpose of affording to those supplying labor and materials on public works projects a means of protection in lieu of the lien afforded to them on private work as provided by the statutes”
Establishes the original legislative intent behind Section 255.05, though the court found the statute's scope has been limited to direct suppliers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulsby supplied labor and materials to several subcontractors working for Miller Construction Company, the general contractor on a public works projec…
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.
[*397] RYDER, Judge.
Appellant, William H. Gulsby, seeks a money judgment of $10,317.14 against appellees/defendants Miller Construction Company, Inc., of Leesburg and the American Insurance Company pursuant to bond provisions in Section 255.05, Florida Statutes (1975). Appellant alleged that appel-lee Miller was the general contractor for the construction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District headquarters at Brooksville and that appellee American Insurance Company was the surety for the construction of said project. Appellant further alleged that it had supplied labor and materials to several of appellee Miller’s subcontractors and that Miller failed to disburse contract funds properly to its subcontractors or failed to insure proper disbursement to appellant Gulsby by its subcontractors.
Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, raising the issue of appellant’s remoteness as a sub-sub-sub-subcontractor in connection with the construction project and asserting that the Florida courts have construed Section 255.05 to provide protection only to claimants furnishing materials or labor to the contractor or his subcontractor and have refused to extend the protection to others more remote.
After the hearing, the trial court entered an order finding appellant a sub-sub-sub-subcontractor, 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 decision in Hey Kiley Man, Inc. v. Azalea Gardens Apartments, 333 So. 2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), but distinguish that case in this proceeding. Hey Kiley Man, Inc. was an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien filed pursuant to the mechanics’ lien statute, Section 713.01-.36, Florida Statutes, 1975. In that case, this court discussed, at length, the various amendments made by the Florida state legislature in the mechanics’ lien law and concluded that certain changes within the mechanics’ lien law included anyone not in privity with the owner performing a portion of a contract to enhance realty and extended coverage to sub-sub-sub-subcontractors.
The Florida Supreme Court wrote in Fulghum v. State, 92 Fla. 622, 109 So. 644 (1926) that the passage of Section 255.05 by the Florida legislature was for the broad general purpose of affording to those supplying labor and materials on public works projects a means of protection in lieu of the lien afforded to them on private work as provided by the statutes. Thus, there may very well now exist a lack of parity in coverage and protection in the law between the mechanics’ lien law encompassed in Chapter 713, relating to private work projects, and Section 255.05, Florida Statutes, relating to the bonds of contractors constructing public buildings. This might become a concern of future legislation but the same legislature which amended Chapter 713 has not amended Section 255.05. Thus we reaffirm our decisions in City of Fort Lauderdale, supra, and North Broward Hospital District, supra, and say it is for the legislature rather than the courts to extend the bond coverage required beyond the limits stated in Section 255.05, Florida Statutes.
Affirmed.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, 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)…not perfect a mechanics’ lien on public property. See Coastal Caisson Drill Co. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 523 So. 2d 791, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), approved, 542 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1989); William H. Gulsby, Inc. v. Miller Const. Inc., of Leesburg, 351 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Additionally, however, the statute at issue was also designed to afford protection to both the surety on the project and the public. The bond itself protects the public, as “owner” of the project, from “two particular defaul…
-
Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miller Constr. Co., 355 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…ntractors in the prosecution of the work . . . This difference is significant because this statutory language has been 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…
-
Coastal Caisson Drill Co., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 523 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…reviously noted the disparity between the coverage afforded by the mechanics’ lien law relating to private work and that of the public construction bond issued pursuant to section 255.05. William H. Gulsby, Inc. v. Miller Construction Company, Inc., 351 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, because the legislature has already delineated certain exemptions, the [*794] waiver of rights against a bond on a public works project is an issue more appropriately determined in the legislative process than in…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fulghum v. State, 92 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1926)
- City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Hardrives Co., 167 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Slate v. Slate, 333 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Lee, 188 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)