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

Heading: F & D's Liability for Delay Damages

Text: F & D next challenges the district court's judgment holding it liable for delay damages. We need not linger long on this question because it is directly controlled by the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in American Home Assurance Co. v. Larkin General Hospital, Ltd.20 The Larkin Court held that the surety's liability plainly and unequivocally. Letters from general contractors attempting to prod subcontractors into improved performance are inevitably abundant in large construction projects but are not generally thought to constitute declarations of default. See Knox, Representing the Private Owner, supra note 11, § 9.2, at 200. It is not asking too much of obligees to require that when they wish to give up on a principal and look to the surety for satisfaction, rather than merely to urge the principal to what they hope will be better performance, they must say so to the surety in clear, unequivocal terms. See, e.g., id. § 9.7, at 217-18. 19 Part IV.C of the district court's opinion dealt with what the district court characterized as F & D's breach of its own surety bond. On this appeal, L & A seizes on that language to argue that F & D's actions exposed it to liability for its own breach of contract notwithstanding Southern's conduct. Obviously L & A intends this argument to bring it within the protection of some favorable language in footnote 2 of the Florida Supreme Court's Larkin opinion, which we address below. We reject L & A's argument. L & A's failure to declare Southern in default excuses F & D's failure to remedy Southern's breach. F & D did not breach the terms of its bond and accordingly has no liability under the bond. Because we conclude that L & A failed to declare Southern in default, we need not resolve the question whether the first requirement of the bond—that Southern actually be in default—was met here. 20 593 So.2d 195 (Fla.1992). 10 for damages is limited by the terms of the bond.21 The bond here contained no provision imposing liability on F & D for delay damages, and the district court may not imply such a provision. 22 Therefore, the district court erred in holding F & D liable for delay damages. We are not persuaded by L & A's attempts to distinguish away the clear command of Larkin.23 Accordingly, we VACATE the award of delay damages against F & D.