Opinion ID: 6349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: F & D's Liability for Attorney Fees

Text: Because F & D is not liable under the terms of its bond, it is not liable for consequential damages, such as attorney fees, flowing from Southern's breach of its contract. Accordingly, to 21 Id. at 198. 22 [T]he liability of a surety should not be extended by implication beyond the terms of the contract, i.e., the performance bond. Id. 23 L & A first contends that the bond in Larkin contained different language from F & D's bond. Even if that is true—and F & D contends that it is not—it is irrelevant. Larkin did not turn on the language of the particular bond before the Court in that case, but rather stated what was obviously intended to be a general proposition of law. Second, L & A contends that F & D's bond was ambiguous. We conclude that the bond was not ambiguous, but even if it were, that is irrelevant to this issue. Larkin plainly states that the express terms of the bond provide the sole measure of F & D's obligation. If F & D's liability for delay damages is not expressed in the bond , id. at 198 (emphasis added, internal quotation omitted), F & D has no such liability. Finally, L & A relies on footnote 2 of Larkin for the proposition that Larkin does not apply to cases involving a surety's liability for its own breach of its bond. That is what Larkin says, but this is not that case. L & A plainly seeks recovery from F & D for Southern's breach of the subcontract. That is precisely the circumstance Larkin covers. The district court similarly distinguished Larkin on grounds irrelevant to the holding of that case, but our discussion of L & A's objections to Larkin should dispose of the district court's reasoning as well. 11 the extent the district court held F & D liable for attorney fees, we VACATE the award.