Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland Inc.

Eleventh Circuit

Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland Inc.

344 F.3d 1281, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18617, 2003 WL 22078080

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 9, 2003

Docket01-17246

StatusPublished

This text of 344 F.3d 1281 (Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland Inc., 344 F.3d 1281, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18617, 2003 WL 22078080 (11th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The procedural history, facts, and issues in this case are contained in our previous opinion, which certified a dispositive question of state law to the Florida Supreme Court. Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland, Inc., 309 F.3d 758 (11th Cir.2002). That Court has now answered the certified question in the affirmative. See David Boland, Inc., v. Trans Coastal Roofing Company, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S626 (Fla., July 11, 2003). The district court therefore erred in interpreting Florida Statutes § 627.428 to prohibit the recovery of attorneys’ fees in excess of a performance bond’s face amount from a subcontractor’s surety when the fees claimant has not shown independent misconduct on the part of the surety. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court judgment with regard to limiting Intercargo’s liability for attorneys’ fees and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of Florida Supreme Court.

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

PER CURIAM:

The procedural history, facts, and issues in this case are contained in our previous opinion, which certified a dispositive question of state law to the Florida Supreme Court. Trans Coastal Roofing Co. v. David Boland, Inc., 309 F.3d 758 (11th Cir.2002). That Court has now answered the certified question in the affirmative. See David Boland, Inc., v. Trans Coastal Roofing Company, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S626 (Fla., July 11, 2003). The district court therefore erred in interpreting Florida Statutes § 627.428 to prohibit the recovery of attorneys’ fees in excess of a performance bond’s face amount from a subcontractor’s surety when the fees claimant has not shown independent misconduct on the part of the surety. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court judgment with regard to limiting Intercargo’s liability for attorneys’ fees and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of Florida Supreme Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F.3d 1281, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18617, 2003 WL 22078080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trans-coastal-roofing-co-v-david-boland-inc-ca11-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack