Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Oakhurst Homes, Inc.

512 So. 2d 1156, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2328, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10399
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 25, 1987
Docket87-1028
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 512 So. 2d 1156 (Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Oakhurst Homes, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Oakhurst Homes, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1156, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2328, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10399 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

512 So.2d 1156 (1987)

OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
OAKHURST HOMES, INC., and Abaco Aluminum Company, Inc., Appellees.

No. 87-1028.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 1987.

*1157 Claire L. Hamner of Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, P.A., Sarasota, for appellant.

Edward L. Wotitzky of Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Wilkins, Frohlich & Jones, Punta Gorda, for appellee Oakhurst Homes, Inc.

Michael B. McIver of Aloia, Dudley, Roosa, Cottrell, Sutton and McIver, Cape Coral, for appellee Abaco Aluminum Co., Inc.

LEHAN, Judge.

An insurance company which issued the surety bond to which mechanics lien claims were transferred appeals from an order finding the company liable for an amount in excess of the amount of the bond. We reverse.

The order from which this appeal is taken states that the company is jointly and severally liable, together with the principals on the bond, to pay judgments totaling $25,504.92. However, it is undisputed that the amount of the bond was $12,850.70. Appellant and appellees concede that the amount of costs and attorney's fees for which the surety company could be held liable in excess of the amount of the bond could not exceed $100. See Gulfstream Pump & Equipment Co. v. Grosvenor Development, Inc., 487 So.2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Upon the lienholder's filing of a motion to increase security pursuant to section 713.24(3), Florida Statutes (1985), a trial court can order the party providing the bond to purchase either an additional bond or an increase in the existing bond, or to otherwise provide increased security for the loan. The trial court cannot, as it did in this case, increase the liability of the security company beyond the amount of the bond. See Gulfstream Pump. We do not conclude that Brickell Bay Club, Inc. v. Ussery, 417 So.2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), is to the contrary.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Myers Construction Group, Inc. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co.
106 So. 3d 990 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Buck
594 So. 2d 280 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Pappalardo Construction Co. v. Buck
568 So. 2d 507 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. La Centre Trucking, Inc.
559 So. 2d 1242 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
512 So. 2d 1156, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2328, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-casualty-ins-co-v-oakhurst-homes-inc-fladistctapp-1987.