coverage thus creating a common law bond. We address first the question of whether a bond which requires only a notice of nonpayment is an actual expansion of coverage from the statute which requires that a notice of nonpayment and a notice to contractor be given before an action will lie. We think not. The cases which have determined that a certain bond expanded coverage all involve bonds which broaden either the class of claimants or the payment provisions. Florida Keys Community College v. Insurance Co. of North America, 456 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Standard Heating; Southwest Florida Water Management Dist. ex rel. Thermal Acoustic Corp. v. Miller Constr. Co., Inc., 355 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Quality Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. Ritch, 373 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 760 (Fla.1980).
holding that the bond was intended to and did substantially comply with sjection 71323 therefore because its conditions were not broader and more protective than the statute required the contention that the bond was a common law bond failed recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest holding that even though a bond contained provisions not required by statute it must be considered statutory and not common law because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in statute holding that surety was liable to subcontractor on payment bond because payment bond applied to any claimant who among other things supplied materials that were reasonably required for use in the performance of the subcontract  holding that bond provisions of rule 684 are manda tory and that an injunction issued without a bond is void