Tag Archives: setoff

CONTRACTUAL SETOFF AND APPLICATION WHEN PERFORMANCE BOND BUYS OUT OF ITS EXPOSURE

Posted on by

The theory of “setoff” is an important theory in construction disputes. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently provided worthy discussion on contractual setoffs:

Setoffs in contract claims are governed by [Florida Statute] section 46.015(2), which provides that if a plaintiff has released “any person in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the court shall [setoff] this amount from the amount of any judgment to which the plaintiff would be otherwise entitled at the time of rendering judgment.”  The setoff statute intends to prohibit plaintiffs from getting double recoveries. 

A setoff requires that settling and non-settling parties be jointly and severally liable.  The settled damages must also be the same damages for which the setoff is sought; stated differently, a setoff is not proper where the trial damages to be setoff are separate and distinct from the settled damages. 

Close Construction, LLC v. City of Riviera Beach Utility Special District, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D1184d (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (internal citations omitted).

Here is how setoff became the driving issue in this appeal.

A public body terminated a contractor and made a claim against the contractor’s performance bond surety.  The surety, prior to any lawsuit, settled the performance bond claim for $1 Million (presumably, based on its own risk management).  The public contractor and contractor ended up in a lawsuit that proceeded to a jury trial. After the trial, the trial court entered a final judgment to the public body for about $1.9 Million. The contractor moved to setoff the $1M from the judgment that its surety previously paid, which the trial court denied.  The appellate court, thankfully, reversed this component of the judgment because setoff should undeniably apply.

Whether the trial court properly awarded setoff is a question of law. Close Construction, supra (internal citations omitted).

The appellate court found that the contractor’s performance bond surety’s settlement payment should be setoff from the judgment the public body received against the contractor:

The District argues that Surety’s payment does not fall within section 46.015(2)’s “sued for” language because the District did not sue Surety on the [performance] bond and Surety never became a defendant in the breach of contract action. We find this argument meritless. The “damages sued for,” i.e., the damages which the District sought in its litigation against [contractor], are the same damages covered by the District’s settlement with Surety. Those damages are the same regardless of whether the District sued Surety.

Contrary to the District’s argument, the setoff statute applies where a plaintiff releases “any person” — the statute is not limited to only litigants. Requiring a lawsuit to be filed as a prerequisite to a setoff would allow a suing party to recover twice by electing not to sue every party or by simply obtaining pre-litigation settlements. Here, the damages sought are the same whether the District brought a bond action against Surety or a breach of contract suit against [contractor]. The District recovers from Surety only because it stands in [contractor’s] shoes under the bond’s terms as a payment source for any damage caused by [contractor’s] breach of contract. In other words, Surety is liable only if [contractor] is liable too. 

In sum, the District’s settlement with Surety for the amount of the performance bond resulted from [contractor’s] breach of the contract. Surety and [contractor] were jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by [contractor’s] breach under the bond’s terms. When the District obtained a verdict for damages caused by [contractor’s] breach, the District was recovering for the same damages already covered by the settlement with Surety. The District cannot recover from both [contractor] and Surety for the exact same damages for which the two were jointly and severally liable.

Close Construction, supra (internal citations omitted).

There are times a performance bond may buy-out of an exposure.  However, under no circumstances should this allow the beneficiary of the performance bond (known as the obligee) to receive a windfall or double recovery!

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

APPLICATION OF SET-OFF WHEN DETERMINING PREVAILING PARTY FOR PURPOSES OF ATTORNEY’S FEES

Posted on by

The recent opinion from the Second District Court of Appeal in Hayward Baker, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7767859 (2nd DCA 2020) demonstrates that the significant issues test for determining the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees applies to disputes involving payment bonds under Florida’s Lien Law (Florida Statutes Chapter 713).  The significant issues test is more or less a subjective test where the party that is deemed to have prevailed on the significant issues in the case is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in the case.  A trial court has discretion to determine the prevailing party which will not be disturbed absent an appellate court finding the trial court abused that discretion.   This significant issues test is an important consideration so that parties understand just because money ends up going their way does not necessarily mean they prevailed on the significant issues in the case.  It could mean that.  But it may not based on the claims and moneys involved in the dispute.

In Hayward Baker, the subcontractor recovered a final judgment of $290,000 against the general contractor and payment bond surety. Both the subcontractor and general contractor moved for attorney’s fees as the party that prevailed on the significant issues in the dispute.  The subcontractor was awarded the full amount due under the subcontract; however, there was a set-off issue.  The general contractor asserted a claim against the subcontractor for property damage associated with the subcontractor’s work and received $450,000 from an insurance carrier relative to that claim in a settled dispute.   The subcontractor was able to set-off this recovered amount from the property damages the general contractor sought against the subcontractor. Thus, the issue was when factoring in the set-off, which party prevailed on the significant issues.  The Second District held it was the subcontractor that recovered the final judgment in its favor:

[T]he ruling on [the subcontractor’s] motion to set off the $450,000 [the general contractor] had received from the [insurance carrier] in the 2012 [settled] Case against the damages award entered against [the subcontractor] was pivotal to the prevailing party determination. The result of applying the setoff against [the general contractor’s] damages award was that [the general contractor] received none of the benefit it sought in the litigation: a judgment was not entered against [the subcontractor] for any of the damage caused to the hospital property. On the other hand, [the subcontractor] received all of the benefit it sought in the litigation, as it obtained $290,000 plus prejudgment interest for the work it performed under the subcontract and it was relieved from paying any damages to [the general contractor]. [The subcontractor], therefore, was the prevailing party in the underlying litigation and entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees

Hayward Baker, 2020 WL at *2.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.