Notes of Decisions
Prof'l Plast. v. Bridgeport-Strasberg, 940 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
· cites it 25× “It alleged that the bond was a common law bond and that the notice and other requirements of section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), did not apply.”
Resnick Developers South v. Clerici, 340 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
· cites it 16× “Pursuant to this contract the owner required the general contractor to furnish a payment bond pursuant to Section 713.23, Florida Statutes. In accordance with the contract the owner on October 23, 1972 received a payment bond in the amount of the original contract price,…”
Bridgeport, Inc. v. Tampa Roofing Co., 903 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
· cites it 21× “The Contractor and the Surety raised several defenses as to the bond claim, including that the bond is a statutory payment bond under section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), that the Subcontractor did not comply with the notice requirements of section 713.”
Bankers & Shippers Ins. v. Aia Insulation, 390 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
· cites it 25× “A suit by anyone (other than Inland as prime contractor) to foreclose a lien was subject to being defeated by an affirmative defense asserting the existence of a proper payment bond. Accordingly, the trial court should have made the awards to the subcontractors Hamilton,…”
OBS Co., Inc. v. Pace Const. Corp., 558 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Finally, it would be inequitable to nullify the bonding company's liability because the owner has not paid the contractor.”
Mursten Const. Co. v. Ces Indus., Inc., 588 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
· cites it 23× “The general contractor obtained a payment bond from Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, as surety, pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988).”
Delta Fire Sprinklers v. ONEBEACON INS., 937 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
· cites it 10× “We conclude, as did the trial court, that the construction payment bond issued by OneBeacon was a statutory bond that comported with section 713.23, Florida Statutes (2001), and that because Delta Fire failed to provide the required statutory notice of nonpayment, it could not…”
Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sentry Indem. Co., 384 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
· cites it 14× “Sentry paid the claims, and then filed suit against Arnold and General on the prime contractor's payment bond.”
Carlson-Se. Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
· cites it 9× “7 million payment bond issued by Seaboard Surety Company (the surety) pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes, [1] to insulate the Publix property from the filing of mechanics' liens.”
Bridgeport Inc. v. Rinker Materials Corp., 849 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
· cites it 12× “Rinker asserts that its claim of lien serves as the statutory notice required under section 713.23, Florida Statutes. Section 713.”
North Am. Spec. Ins. v. Bergeron Dev., 745 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
· cites it 8× “North American filed an answer and alleged several affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action under section 713.23, and failure to satisfy conditions precedent to payment under section 713.”
— 713.23(1) — 3 cases
Bridgeport Inc. v. Rinker Materials Corp., 849 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
“Rinker asserts that its claim of lien serves as the statutory notice required under section 713.23, Florida Statutes. Section 713.”
— 713.23(1)(a) — 7 cases
OBS Co., Inc. v. Pace Const. Corp., 558 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1990).
“Finally, it would be inequitable to nullify the bonding company's liability because the owner has not paid the contractor.”
Prof'l Plast. v. Bridgeport-Strasberg, 940 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
“It alleged that the bond was a common law bond and that the notice and other requirements of section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), did not apply.”
Carlson-Se. Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
“7 million payment bond issued by Seaboard Surety Company (the surety) pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes, [1] to insulate the Publix property from the filing of mechanics' liens.”
— 713.23(1)(b) — 2 cases
Bridgeport, Inc. v. Tampa Roofing Co., 903 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
“The Contractor and the Surety raised several defenses as to the bond claim, including that the bond is a statutory payment bond under section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), that the Subcontractor did not comply with the notice requirements of section 713.”
Bridgeport Inc. v. Rinker Materials Corp., 849 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
“Rinker asserts that its claim of lien serves as the statutory notice required under section 713.23, Florida Statutes. Section 713.”
— 713.23(1)(c) — 3 cases
Delta Fire Sprinklers v. ONEBEACON INS., 937 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
“We conclude, as did the trial court, that the construction payment bond issued by OneBeacon was a statutory bond that comported with section 713.23, Florida Statutes (2001), and that because Delta Fire failed to provide the required statutory notice of nonpayment, it could not…”
Prof'l Plast. v. Bridgeport-Strasberg, 940 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
“It alleged that the bond was a common law bond and that the notice and other requirements of section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), did not apply.”
— 713.23(1)(d) — 12 cases
Delta Fire Sprinklers v. ONEBEACON INS., 937 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
“We conclude, as did the trial court, that the construction payment bond issued by OneBeacon was a statutory bond that comported with section 713.23, Florida Statutes (2001), and that because Delta Fire failed to provide the required statutory notice of nonpayment, it could not…”
North Am. Spec. Ins. v. Bergeron Dev., 745 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
“North American filed an answer and alleged several affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action under section 713.23, and failure to satisfy conditions precedent to payment under section 713.”
Mursten Const. Co. v. Ces Indus., Inc., 588 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
“The general contractor obtained a payment bond from Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, as surety, pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988).”
Bridgeport, Inc. v. Tampa Roofing Co., 903 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
“The Contractor and the Surety raised several defenses as to the bond claim, including that the bond is a statutory payment bond under section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), that the Subcontractor did not comply with the notice requirements of section 713.”
— 713.23(1)(e) — 6 cases
Bridgeport, Inc. v. Tampa Roofing Co., 903 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
“The Contractor and the Surety raised several defenses as to the bond claim, including that the bond is a statutory payment bond under section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), that the Subcontractor did not comply with the notice requirements of section 713.”
North Am. Spec. Ins. v. Bergeron Dev., 745 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
“North American filed an answer and alleged several affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action under section 713.23, and failure to satisfy conditions precedent to payment under section 713.”
Mursten Const. Co. v. Ces Indus., Inc., 588 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
“The general contractor obtained a payment bond from Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, as surety, pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988).”
— 713.23(1)(f) — 8 cases
Mursten Const. Co. v. Ces Indus., Inc., 588 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
“The general contractor obtained a payment bond from Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, as surety, pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988).”
— 713.23(1)(g) — 4 cases
Carlson-Se. Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
“7 million payment bond issued by Seaboard Surety Company (the surety) pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes, [1] to insulate the Publix property from the filing of mechanics' liens.”
— 713.23(2) — 10 cases
Mursten Const. Co. v. Ces Indus., Inc., 588 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
“The general contractor obtained a payment bond from Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, as surety, pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988).”
Bankers & Shippers Ins. v. Aia Insulation, 390 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
“A suit by anyone (other than Inland as prime contractor) to foreclose a lien was subject to being defeated by an affirmative defense asserting the existence of a proper payment bond. Accordingly, the trial court should have made the awards to the subcontractors Hamilton,…”
— 713.23(3) — 2 cases
Prof'l Plast. v. Bridgeport-Strasberg, 940 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
“It alleged that the bond was a common law bond and that the notice and other requirements of section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), did not apply.”
Bridgeport, Inc. v. Tampa Roofing Co., 903 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
“The Contractor and the Surety raised several defenses as to the bond claim, including that the bond is a statutory payment bond under section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), that the Subcontractor did not comply with the notice requirements of section 713.”
— 713.23(d) — 1 case
Prof'l Plast. v. Bridgeport-Strasberg, 940 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
“It alleged that the bond was a common law bond and that the notice and other requirements of section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1999), did not apply.”
— 713.23(f)(2) — 1 case
— 713.23(l)(c) — 1 case
— 713.23(l)(d) — 4 cases
— 713.23(l)(e) — 1 case
— 713.23(l)(f) — 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.