American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 77286
| Decision Date | 02 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 77286,77286 |
| Citation | 593 So.2d 195 |
| Parties | , 17 Fla. L. Weekly S2 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LARKIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, LTD., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James F. Crowder, Jr. and J. Steven Hudson, Kimbrell & Hamann, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.
James E. Glass and Linda Dickhaus Agnant, James E. Glass Associates, Miami, for respondent.
We have for review American Home Assurance Co. v. Larkin General Hospital, Ltd., 571 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), in which the district court certified direct conflict with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Gulf Florida Development Corp., 365 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). 1 The issue is whether a surety on a performance bond can be held liable for consequential delay damages caused by the contractor's default. We hold that a surety cannot be held liable for delay damages due to the contractor's default unless the bond specifically provides coverage for delay damages. 2
Larkin General Hospital, Limited (Larkin) entered into a contract with a contractor, H Corporation/Cazo-Ardivan Joint Venture II (H Corporation), for the construction of improvements at the Larkin General Hospital in Dade County. American Home Assurance Company (American) executed and issued a performance bond to Larkin. The construction contract required the work to commence on or about January 1, 1983 and to be substantially completed no later than May 31, 1984. As of May 31, 1984, the project was slightly over eighty percent complete. Larkin, however, did not terminate the contract at this time. On November 23, 1985, eighteen months after the projected completion date, a dispute arose between Larkin and H Corporation. Larkin immediately terminated the contract and gave American notice of the default. American elected not to complete the project, and Larkin had the contract completed using another contractor.
In February 1986, Larkin brought suit against American for breach of the performance bond. Subsequently, H Corporation, pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, filed a demand for arbitration. In March of 1988, the arbitration panel entered a net award against H Corporation and in favor of Larkin in the amount of $1,860,545. Larkin filed an application to confirm the arbitration award against H Corporation and American which the trial court granted. The trial court held that American's liability to Larkin included delay damages. The trial court entered a corrected final judgment for $2,314,579.58 and, thereafter, assessed attorney's fees against American for amounts incurred by Larkin in the arbitration confirmation proceedings.
On appeal the Third District affirmed the trial court but certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Gulf Florida. The First District held in Gulf Florida that, under the terms of a performance bond, a surety was not liable for damages caused by delays in completing the contract. 365 So.2d at 751.
A bond is a contract, and, therefore, a bond is subject to the general law of contracts. Crabtree v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 438 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The intent of the parties to the contract should govern the construction of a contract. Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So.2d 281 (Fla.1953). To determine the intent of the parties, a court should consider the language in the contract, the subject matter of the contract, and the object and purpose of the contract. Clark v. Clark, 79 So.2d 426 (Fla.1955).
The language of the performance bond in the case at bar is identical to the language in the performance bond in Arbor Club, Inc. v. Omega Constr. Co., 565 So.2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 576 So.2d 294 (Fla.1990), and Gulf Florida. The Fourth District has interpreted the language in performance bonds to include delay damages. Arbor Club; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Woolley/Sweeney Hotel No. 5, 545 So.2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 553 So.2d 1166 (Fla.1989). In doing so, the Fourth District in Arbor Club specifically focused on the following standard language of performance bonds:
Whenever Contractor shall be, and declared by Owner to be in default under the Contract, the Owner having performed Owner's obligations thereunder, the Surety may promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly
1) Complete the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions, or
2) Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions, and upon determination by Surety of the lowest responsible bidder, or, if the Owner elects, upon determination by the Owner and the Surety jointly of the lowest responsible bidder, arrange for a contract between such bidder and Owner, and make available as Work progresses (even though there should be a default or a succession of defaults under the contract or contracts of completion arranged under this paragraph) sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion less the balance of the contract price, but not exceeding, including other costs and damages for which the Surety may be liable hereunder, the amount set forth in the first paragraph hereof.
565 So.2d at 359 n. 1 (emphasis added).
The court in Arbor Club, following the California Court in Amerson v. Christman, 261 Cal.App.2d 811, 68 Cal.Rptr. 378 (1968), interpreted the language "including other costs and damages for which the surety may be liable hereunder" to include delay damages. 565 So.2d at 359. However, the court in Amerson had extended the obligations of the surety under the performance bond without specifying how such language extended the obligations of the surety. See Ken Sobel, Owner Delay Damages Chargeable to Performance Bond Surety, 21 Cal.W.L. Rev. 128, 137 (1984) ().
In Gulf Florida the First District, faced with the same language in another performance bond, concluded that the terms of the performance bond limited the liability of the surety to the costs of completion and the costs of curing defective work. 365 So.2d at 751. Contrary to the holding in Arbor Club and Woolley/Sweeney, the First District refused to extend liability to include delay damages. Id.
The court in Arbor Club failed to construe the language in the performance bond in harmony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners
...liability for delay damages].) Transamerica, however, argues we should adopt the reasoning in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin Gen. Hosp. (Fla.1992) 593 So.2d 195 (American Home ), which held that a surety could not be held liable for delay damages unless the bond explicitly so provides. ......
-
Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners
...587 [surety bound by construction contract's arbitration clause].) Transamerica asks us to follow American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd. (1992) 593 So.2d 195, in which the Florida Supreme Court specifically rejected the reasoning and result of Amerson. American Home Assur. C......
-
Structures v. Insurance Co. of the West
...This same kind of failure caused the California Supreme Court not to follow L & A and its precursor, American Home Assurance Co. v. Larkin General Hospital, Ltd., 593 So.2d 195 (Fla.1992), on the matter of delay damages. Cates Constr., Inc., 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 855, 980 P.2d at 49 L & A Contract......
-
Dadeland Depot. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine
...event the principal defaults on its obligations required by the underlying construction contract. See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Larkin Gen. Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla.1992) ("The surety agrees to complete the construction or to pay the obligee the reasonable costs of completion if......
-
Annual survey of fidelity and surety law, 1998.
...616 (Fla. App. 1998). (21.) 957 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. App. 1997). (22.) 497 S.E.2d 586 (Ga. App. 1998). (23.) 707 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1998). (24.) 593 So.2d 195 (Fla. (25.) 959 S.W.2d 490 (Mo.App. 1998). (26.) United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234 (1947). (27.) 140 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 1998)......