Legal Opinion

CC-Aventura, Inc. v. Weitz Company, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided October 11, 2012No. 11-11191UnpublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In this surety case, obligee/contractor Weitz contends that the district court erred by failing to properly follow the majority opinion in Dooley & Mack Constructors, Inc. v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co., 972 So.2d 893 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.2007). The district court concluded that the surety Fidelity was not liable on a surety bond because Weitz had failed to give notice to Fidelity of the subcontractor Aero’s default before Weitz undertook to remedy the default itself.

In Dooley, the subcontractor defaulted on its obligations. Id. at 894. Rather than notify the surety, the obligee/contractor…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dooley Constructors v. Developers Sur.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
  2. RLI Insurance v. St. Patrick's Home for the Infirm & AgedDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Arch Insurance Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2016
  2. International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Americaribe-Moriarty JVDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2016
  3. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY v. A3 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A3 NORTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and A3 AMENITIES, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2026
  4. Sauer Construction, LLC v. United Structures of Georgia, LLC, Western Surety Company and Great Midwest Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2026
  5. Sonoma Springs Limited Partnership v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of MarylandDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2019

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API