Case ID: so2d_533/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and Universal Mobility, Inc., Appellants, v. SHEFFIELD STEEL PRODUCTS, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.
    Nos. 87-537, 87-541.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Aug. 18, 1988.
    On Motion for Rehearing and Clarification Nov. 10, 1988.
    Woodrow “Mac” Melvin, Jr. and W. Wyndham Geyer, Jr., of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Miami, for appellant Universal Mobility, Inc.
    Dan B. Guernsey, of Welbaum, Zook & Jones, Miami, for appellant U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
    Edward Hedstrom of Hedstrom & Smith, Palatka and S. Gordon Blalock of Blalock, Holbrook & Akel, Jacksonville, for appellee Daniel B. Sheffield.
    Robert M. Foster and William S. Graes-sle of Mahoney Adams Milam Surface & Grimsley, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee Sheffield Steel Products, Inc.
   PER CURIAM.

The final judgment appealed from is modified to provide that appellant U.S. Fire Insurance Company, as surety, is liable thereon only to the extent of its obligation on the surety bond. As so modified, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

We grant appellee’s motion for rehearing and clarify our decision dated August 18, 1988 to hold that pursuant to section 713.-76, Florida Statutes (1987) and the language of the surety bond, appellant U. S. Fire, as surety, is liable on the judgment to the extent of its obligation on the bond, plus costs, although the addition of costs may exceed the penal amount of the bond. The surety is additionally liable for attorney’s fees by way of statute, section 627.-428(1), Florida Statutes (1987), independent of the language of the bond. See Financial Indemnity Co. v. Steele & Sons, Inc., 403 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). U. S. Fire Insurance Company’s motion for clarification is denied.

SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.