Issue: Whether a company who provided hauling services to a work-site pursuant to a contract with a subcontractor is a claimant under terms of a bond in Florida?
|Area of Law:||Construction Law|
|Keywords:||Claim against bond; Hauling services|
|Cited Cases:||571 So. 2d 41; 172 N.E. 152|
|Cited Statutes:||Fla. Stat. § 255.05(1)(a); Fla. Stat. § 255.05, § 713.01|
There is nothing in § 255.05 or § 713.01 that establishes or even suggests that a hauler in an appropriate case cannot make a claim against even a statutory bond. See Fla. Stat. § 255.05(1)(a) (supports view that sub-subcontractors “whose claims derive directly or indirectly from the prosecution of the work” are entitled to make claim). See K. T. Transp., Inc. v. MCI Constructors, Inc. 571 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (although it did not directly address the issue the court appears to have recognized implicitly that a hauler may make claim against bond).
Cases from other jurisdictions, dependent on their own statutory language, go both ways. The majority, however, appear to allow recovery because hauling services are considered part of the cost of material when delivered to the place of construction, particularly when, as here, they enter into and become part of the improvement. See, e.g., Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Portsmouth Ice, Coal & Bldg. Material Co., 172 N.E. 152, 153 (Ohio 1930); see generally, 11 Lee Russ, Couch on Insurance 3d § 165:142 (1998) (collecting cases); 17 Am Jur 2d Contractors Bonds § 79 (1990) (“Claims for transportation charges incurred in connection with a public works project have been found to be covered by contractors’ bonds under both payment and performance conditions. Bills for transportation charges are included on the rationale that bills for hauling materials are inseparable from the bills for the materials furnished for the public project, which are covered […]