State, Dept. of Transp. for Use and Benefit of Consolidated Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., MM-257
| Decision Date | 18 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. MM-257,MM-257 |
| Citation | 372 So.2d 1177 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, for the Use and Benefit of CONSOLIDATED PIPE & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., an Alabama Corporation, Appellant, v. HOUDAILLE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Federal Insurance Company, a New Jersey Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Clyde N. Wells, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Edward L. Nowak, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Does the failure of a performance bond to include specific reference to the notice provisions and time limitations of Section 255.05(2), Florida Statutes (1975), even though the bond required the contractor to comply with the provisions of Section 255.05, make the bond a common law, rather than a statutory bond? We conclude it does not. There is language in United Bonding Ins. Co. v. City of Holly Hill, 249 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) and S. W. Fla. Water Mgt. Dist. v. Miller Const., 355 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) indicating that statutory bonds must refer to both the statute creating the bond as well as the limitations periods stated in the statute, but we think such language must be restricted to the facts in those cases which are distinguishable from those here. In both Holly Hill and Miller the performance bonds failed to refer to Section 255.05, failed to contain any limitation with respect to the time within which a suit on the bond could be commenced and, most importantly, granted broader coverage than the minimum required by the statute.
The primary test in ascertaining whether a bond is statutory or one at common law is to determine if the minimum obligation placed upon the principal and his surety by statute has been expanded by the bond. See Fulghum v. State, 92 Fla. 662, 109 So. 644 (1926). Here the bond, while containing no reference to the statutory limitation, specifically cited Section 255.05. Finally, it did not expand the principal's obligation to laborers and suppliers as set forth in the statute. Indeed, the bond practically restated word-for-word the minimum obligation: "(I)f such Contractor shall promptly make a payment to all persons supplying labor, material, equipment and supplies, used directly or indirectly by the said Contractor or any subcontractor(s) in the prosecution of the work provided for in said Contract, . . ., then this obligation (shall) be void; . . . ." 1
If any ambiguity arguably existed in the bond, 2 it could hardly be construed against the surety which did not prepare the bond. Appellant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Home Assur. v. PLAZA MATERIALS
...plaintiff, is the only party that is subject to the rule of strict construction not the surety." State Dep't of Transp. v. Houdaille Indus., Inc., 372 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (footnote omitted). In other words, the surety should not be held responsible for the agency's IV. THE ......
-
Florida Keys Community College v. Insurance Co. of North America
...requirements enunciated in the statute and the language contained within the bond. State ex rel Consolidated Pipe & Supply Co. v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 372 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Section 255.05, Florida Statutes (1977) (1) Any person entering into a formal contract with the s......
-
Martin Paving Co. v. United Pacific Ins. Co.
...as it always has meant, a bond whose protections exceed the minimum obligations imposed by statute. State, Dep't of Transp. v. Houdaille, 372 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see also Southwest Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miller Constr. Co., 355 So.2d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). ......
-
Standard Heating Service, Inc. v. Guymann Const., Inc.
...District v. Miller Construction Co., Inc. of Leesburg, 355 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); State, Department of Transportation v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 372 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The bond here was no more expansive than a statutory bond provided for by section 713.23, Florida ......
-
Not all bonds are created equal: distinguishing a common law bond from a statutory bond.
...in State of Florida, Department of Transportation ex rel. Consolidated Pipe & Supply Company, Inc. v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 372 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In Houdaille, the court held that the failure of a performance bond to include specific reference to the notice provisio......