United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Tuggle
Citation | 216 So.2d 80 |
Decision Date | 22 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 68--44,68--44 |
Parties | UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Ronald J. TUGGLE and Gene Patterson, individually and collectively, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bazemore & Midgley, Fort Myers, for appellant.
Harry A. Blair, Fort Myers, for appellees.
Appellant, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in this state as a bonding company, takes this appeal from an order granting appellees a summary judgment. The case involves the construction of Section 903.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which reads in material part:
'Contracts to Indemnify Sureties
(Emphasis supplied.)
When one Lawrence G. Baugh was arrested and held for criminal trial, appellant bonding company became the surety for him on a $3,000 appearance bond. At the same time the appellees executed an indemnity agreement, which later became the subject of this suit. About one year after the execution of these two documents, however, the criminal defendant fled the State, apparently to escape prosecution, and the appearance bond was estreated and forfeited. Two weeks later appellant's attorney-in-fact executed and filed for the first time an Indemnity Affidavit called for by § 903.14. The reinstated bond was thereafter estreated a second time and appellant instituted this suit against the appellees for damages sustained from the breach of the written indemnity agreement. The trial judge subsequently granted appellees' motion for summary judgment and the bonding company appealed.
The issue to be decided here is whether Florida Statute § 903.14, F.S.A. requires an indemnity affidavit to be filed Simultaneously with the filing of the bail undertaking, or whether the documents may be filed at different times. If they are required to be filed simultaneously, then the trial judge did not err in granting the summary judgment.
The issue is one of first impression in this state, and apparently in this country. Three other states, Illinois, Indiana, and New York, have statutes similar to our § 903.14, but they are likewise unconstrued. See Ill.Stat.Ann. ch. 16, § 55 (1965); Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--3724 (1961); N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 554--c (McKinney 1958).
Section 903.14 begins by saying 'Every surety for the release of any person on bail, Shall file with the undertaking an affidavit * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) The legislature must be assumed to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tascano v. State, KK-22
...20 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1973); Florida Tallow Corporation v. Bryan, 237 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1970); United Bonding Insurance Company v. Tuggle, 216 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1968); Headley v. State ex rel. Bethune, 166 So.2d 479 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1964). Indeed, the placing by the courts of s......
-
Drury v. Harding
...State, 363 So.2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Florida Tallow Corp. v. Bryan, 237 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); United Bonding Insurance Co. v. Tuggle, 216 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Despite that the overwhelming majority of decisions hold to the contrary, petitioners contend that "shall" con......
-
Ewing v. Kaplan, A-1
...latter may be permitted to assert the surety's rights to recapture the defendant and prevent an estreature. United Bonding Insurance Co. v. Tuggle, 216 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). There is no claim here that the indemnitors made any attempt at all to assert such rights with the sheriff or ......
-
Rochelle Bail Agency, Inc. v. Maryland National Ins. Co., 71-1622.
...indemnified by a third-party, the indemnitor is the true bondsman since he bears the ultimate risk of loss. United Bonding Insurance Co. v. Tuggle, 216 So.2d 80, 82 (Fla.App.1968). The remarks of the Florida appeals court were not intended, however, to hold that the existence of the indemni......