In Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. James T. Treace, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D60c (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 31, 2015), Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently held that attorney’s fees awarded to a Plaintiff in a construction defect action against an insured contractor were covered under a supplementary payment provision in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. In an underlying construction defect suit, homeowners, James and Angelina Treace (the “Treaces”), successfully sued the contractor that built their home and obtained a judgment “for the cost to access and repair water damage caused by faulty construction.” In addition to these compensatory damages, the trial court also awarded attorney’s fees and costs in favor of the Treaces. Continue Reading
Keith Lambdin and Dean Meyers successfully obtained an order granting a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, in federal court on behalf of a design professional and consulting services client.
Our client was hired by a municipality located in Broward County, Florida to perform inspection and code enforcement activities throughout the municipality. In the course of performing its contractual duties, our client’s employees cited the Plaintiff with several violations of the municipality’s code. The Plaintiff filed suit against the municipality and our client in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, claiming that the code violation enforcement activity was retaliatory in nature in violation of the Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Keith and Dean filed a motion to dismiss in response to the Plaintiff’s complaint. Upon review of the motion to dismiss, the District Court ordered a full dismissal with prejudice of all counts against our client and the municipality. In addition, Keith and Dean successfully secured an award of attorney’s fees and costs to our client pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and Local Rule 7.3(a).
As Florida’s 2016 Legislative Session approaches, two companion bills have been introduced – Senate Bill (“SB”) 316 and House Bill (“HB”) 297. These bills seek to address the interpretation and application of the statute of repose set forth in § 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes. Intended to impose finality on the availability of claims for latent defects, the statute of repose imposes a ten-year expiration date on actions founded upon the design, planning, or construction of improvements to real property. Per the statute, the ten-year expiration date begins to run from the latter of the following events:
- Actual possession of the improvement by the owner;
- Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
- Abandonment of the construction, if not completed; or
- Completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer.
SB 316 and HB 297 were introduced as a direct response to the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Cypress Fairway Condominium Association, Inc. v. Bergeron Construction Co., Inc., 164 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
After a 30 day trial, Mike Brand and David Salazar secured a complete defense verdict in Monroe County (the Florida Keys). Mike and David represented a general contractor who replaced 6 miles of a water pipeline on the median of the Overseas Highway. Plaintiff allegedly went into the median as part of an emergency maneuver because the FDOT defines this area as a “clear zone” (designed to be a safe refuge for the motoring public) and suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result. He claims our client built a concrete pad that wasn’t flush to grade per the plans and specifications (as well as the FDOT Greenbook and Utility Accommodations Manual) causing him to fly off his motorcycle 14 feet in the air and land on his face.
Plaintiff, himself a former FDOT employee, claimed he was aware this was a clear zone. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, stopped breathing at the scene, was air lifted to Jackson, and was in a coma thereafter.
Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for $14.5 Million. The jury was out 33 minutes.
On June 16, 2015, Governor Rick Scott signed into law House Bill 87, which amends Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes. The amendment takes effect October 1, 2015.
The intent of Chapter 558 is to avoid the commencement of an action by providing a mechanism for the parties to enter into discussions with one another through pre-suit notices of claim. Prior to the amendment, Chapter 558 notices of claim were often ambiguous and were inadequately supported and documented. Further, these notices failed to provide the locations of the alleged defects, and were subject to change. Recipients of the notices were often forced to incur significant expense to determine the specific nature and locations of the claimed construction defects, some of which might not exist or were not in the scope of work of the party who received the notice. These circumstances were not conducive to settlement negotiations. Accordingly, an amendment was proposed to streamline alternative dispute resolution in for construction defect disputes.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida recently issued an opinion in Cypress Fairway Condominium Association, Inc. v. Bergeron Construction Co., Inc., No. 5D13-4102, 2015 WL 2129473 (Fla. 5th DCA May 8, 2015), directly addressing the issue of when a construction contract is complete for purposes of determining if a lawsuit was barred by the Statute of Repose. In Cypress Fairway, the Court evaluated whether the contract was completed on the date the final application for payment was submitted or the date the final payment was actually made. Although the contested period in Cypress Fairway was only three days, this decision is important in clarifying when the contract between the owner and an engineer, registered architect or a licensed contractor is complete. In Cypress Fairway, the Court determined a contract is complete when final payment is made.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently issued an opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 13-80831-CIV, 2015 WL 3539755 (S.D. Fla. June 4, 2015), addressing an issue of first impression. In Altman, the Court evaluated whether an insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify an insured who receives a Notice of Claim pursuant to Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. Altman is important because a Court ruled that a Chapter 558 Notice of Claim is not a “civil proceeding” and therefore is not a “suit” under a standard form CG 00 01 insurance policy. Therefore, the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify ACI, and it did not breach the policies, as a matter of law.
We are pleased to report yet another appellate victory in a case George Truitt and Greg Willis of the firm’s Construction Group tried and Scott Cole and George Truitt of the firm’s Appellate Group defended on appeal.
David Salazar and Craig Distel recently published an article titled “Goodnight Contractors – Sanislo v. Give the Kids” analyzing the Florida Supreme Court’s February 12, 2015 decision in Sanislo v. Give the Kids the World, Inc. and its potential impact on the construction industry. Their article will be appearing in the upcoming edition of The Lawyer Issue, an international publication providing updates to the legal and business community throughout the world. The Sanislo opinion resolved a conflict regarding the enforceability of exculpatory agreements between the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal and determined that the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” are not necessary to have an enforceable exculpatory provision. To read more about the Sanislo decision and its potential impact on the construction industry, please follow this link: http://www.lawyerissue.com/good-night-contractors-sanislo-v-give-the-kids/.
 No. SC12-2409 (Fla. Feb. 12, 2015) (note: the final opinion has not been released for publication in the permanent law reports and until release, it is subject to revision or withdrawal).
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed Florida as an injury-in-fact trigger state in Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., Case No. 14-11639 (11th Cir. April 7, 2015). However, the Court did not end the manifestation versus injury-in-fact debate, choosing instead not to address the appropriate trigger where it is “difficult (or impossible) to determine when the property was damaged.”