Thank you for your patience;
So basically, both parties are responsible for ensuring the terms of the contract are complied with. If the contract did not require the subs to be insured, then one party cannot void the contract based on non-insurance as that would not be a breach by the general, since it was not a term of contract. The court will not "imply" a term that is not in a contract in most situations, unless the contract is drafted with vague terms, and then the court will construe any ambiguity against the party that provided the contract, on the theory that they created the issue (vagueness) and thus will pay the price for creating that issue.
Even if a party is in breach, one party cannot withhold payment because that is known as the doctrine of "unjust enrichment". So even if insurance was required, the party would be required to pay per the terms of the contract. If there was an issue created due to the non insurance, then the party that was required to have insurance (ie the general) would be liable for any economic damages resulting from the non insurance issue.
Additionally, under code 176.215, the general is liable for Worker's Comp if there is an issue with a sub that does not have WC insurance so most generals will ensure the subs do have WC insurance.
But in summation, a party cannot benefit from a contract and then refuse to pay due to an immaterial breach of the contract, assuming the court determines that insurance was to be provided per the contract.
Thank you for using Just Answer.
I hope the information I provided is useful. If you need further clarification please post here and I will reply as soon as I see it; otherwise, Kindly
This does Not result in additional charges to the customer and allows the site to credit me for assisting you today.
Thank you and take care!
No attorney client relationship is created as this is general legal information, not advice; and a personal attorney should be hired if one wishes specific legal advice for their personal situation.