Call us: 305.350.5300

Florida Construction Law News

16SEP 2020

Comparative Breach of Contract – The New Benefit of the Bargain in Construction?

by Dean Meyers

Ask most Florida Construction Law practitioners, and you will likely hear that liability may not be apportioned in “pure” breach of contract cases via the Comparative Fault Act, section 768.81, Florida Statutes (the “Act”).  If a material breach is a “substantial factor” in causing damages, the breaching party must answer for all damages that were Read More…

07MAY 2020

I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

by Dean Meyers

The Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion in Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 (Fla. Jan 23, 2020), which answered the following certified question of great public importance: Does rule 9.130 [(A)(3)(C)(XI)] permit an appeal of a non-final order denying immunity if the record shows that the defendant is entitled to Read More…

14APR 2020

“Vaccinating” Your Construction Business: An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure

by Dean Meyers

On April 3, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-91, the Safer At Home Order, restricting all “movements and personal interactions outside of [the] home to only those necessary to obtain or provide essential services or conduct essential activities” through April 30.  The effects may be far-reaching for Florida’s construction industry.  In 2018, Florida’s Read More…

06MAR 2020

Potential Changes to Chapter 558, Florida Statutes

by Robert L. Newsom, Esq.

In an effort “to promote efficient resolution of claims and reduce litigation,” Florida House Bill 295 (related Senate Bill 1488), introduced in October 2019, contains major changes to Florida’s construction defect law, Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. Most notably, the proposed legislation removes an association as a claimant under the statute; requires that all settlement funds Read More…

23JAN 2019

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

by Callie E. Waers, Esq.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds.

17DEC 2018

Homeowners’ Negligence Claims against Builder Bears Significant Relationship to Construction Contracts and Are Therefore Arbitrable

by Zachary A. Landes, Esq.

Recently, in Vanacore Construction, Inc. v. Osborn, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 18068, 2018 WL 6579205, the 5th District Court of Appeal determined that a homeowners’ claims against a builder for construction defects bore a significant relationship to the parties’ construction contracts. Therefore, the claims were arbitrable pursuant to the broadly worded arbitration provision of the contracts.

01OCT 2018

Chapter 558, Commencing an Action, and the Statute of Repose

by Robert L. Newsom, Esq.

Prior to the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Robert Gindel, et al. v. Centex Homes, et al., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2112d (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 12, 2018), Florida courts had not directly addressed the issue of whether the mandatory pre-suit notice for construction defects under Chapter 558 qualifies as an “action,” pursuant to the statute of repose in Chapter 95.

Gindel v. Centex is a construction defect case for damages arising from the alleged improper construction of townhomes. On March 31, 2004, the Homeowners closed on and took possession of the townhomes constructed by Centex and its subcontractors. On that date, the statute of repose, section 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2014), began to run as to any construction defect, the expiration of which was ten years later. After discovering the alleged defect, on February 6, 2014, the Homeowners provided the Chapter 558 requisite pre-suit notice of defect to Centex. At the conclusion of the mandatory pre-suit procedure, Centex declined to cure the alleged defect. The Homeowners filed suit on May 2, 2014.

15SEP 2018

Owner Liability in the Context of Construction: Seeking to Circumvent Workers’ Compensation in Favor of Tort Liability

by Grayson Miller, Esq.

Despite the best safety practices implanted con construction jobsites, injuries occasionally occur during construction.  If contractors are properly insured with workers’ compensation coverage, all contractors on the job site should be protected from tort liability via horizontal and vertical workers’ compensation immunity.  See Fla. Stat. § 440.10(1)(e).  Workers’ compensation immunity has been held to be extremely expansive in this context and essentially provides workers’ compensation immunity for all contractors on the jobsite as long as the injured claimant is covered by any contractor’s workers’ compensation policy.  See Amorin v. Gordon, 996 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (an example of how expansive horizontal and vertical immunity during construction can be).

01JUL 2018

Inspected, Accepted and Protected: Recent Appellate Decision Reinforces Breadth of the Slavin Defense

by Brian J. Aull, Esq.

In a recent decision, Valiente v. R.J. Behar & Company, Inc., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1277c (Fla. 3d DCA June 6, 2018), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal (“Third District”) upheld the entry of a summary judgment in favor of a contractor on the basis of acceptance of the work by the owner, fortifying use of the Slavin doctrine. In Florida, “[u]nder the Slavin doctrine, a contractor cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by third parties when the injuries occur after the contractor completed its work, the owner of the property accepted the contractor’s work, and the defects causing the injury were patent.”

16MAY 2018

Duties of Defense and Indemnity in Construction Litigation: A Case Study

by Reinaldo Mouriz, Esq.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida recently issued an order in Morette Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, [1] where the Court addressed whether an insurer, Southern-Owners Insurance Company (“Southern-Owners”), had duties to defend and indemnify various parties against state court claims for property damage due to allegedly defective work performed by two of its insured subcontractors, Etheridge Construction, Inc. (“Etheridge”) and Wallace Sprinkler & Supply, Inc. (“Wallace”). Morette Companybegan in August 2008, when Little Sabine, Inc. (“Sabine”), the developer and owner of Margaritaville, hired Morette Company, Inc. (“Morette”) as general contractor for the Margaritaville project. Morette subcontracted work to Etheridge and Wallace. The terms of the respective subcontracts required each subcontractor to defend and indemnify Morette for all damages claims “occasioned by” the subcontractor’s work and to reimburse Morette for all expenses incurred, including reasonable attorney’s fees, as a result of such claims.