There is strong case law for the proposition that an owner has no site safety responsibilities to contractor's employees for areas of the property under the contractor's control, unless the owner supervises the contractor's work or dictates  means and methods. City of Miami v. Perez is a good example.

489.128 speaks in terms of barring any recovery in law or equity for unlicensed contracting, though I have never seen it used as a defense to a personal injury claim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roberts, Hardy L. [mailto:hroberts@carltonfields.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:11 PM
To: Richard A. Burt
Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Unlicensed contracting is a crime.  I'm not sure what impact that has on the homeowner's claimed liability, but it is worth considering.

On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:29 PM, "Richard A. Burt" <dick@burt-burt.commailto:dick@burt-burt.com> wrote:

The contractor is suing in tort, not contract.

Neither FS 489.128 (dealing with enforceability of a contract for construction), nor the (oral) contract (which does not address/allocate liability for personal injury), nor case law (see Tiara) bars a tort claim arising out of an injury.  Subject to workers compensation statutes (of which I know nothing), in my opinion, the tort claim survives even though a contract claim would be barred.

The duty issue might depend upon the homeowner’s relationship with the claimant: is the claimant an ‘employee’ or an ‘independent contractor’?

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sean A. Mickley
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:11 PM
To: 'Sakwa, Stuart H.'; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Dovetailing off Mr. Sakwa’s post…

Homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor/handyman to perform remedial work, including roofing repair work. The unlicensed contractor/handyman does not have safety fall protection while performing the roofing repair work, falls off the Homeowner’s roof, lands on his feet and breaks his foot. The unlicensed contractor/handyman now sues the Homeowner for negligence asserting, among other things, that the Homeowner owed the unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and provide safety fall protection.

Questions:

1.   Is such a negligence claim arguably barred because he is an unlicensed contractor? If not, can his failure to be licensed under ch. 489, F.S. serve as evidence of negligence for purposes of comparative negligence?
   

2.   As a threshold issue, does a Homeowner owe an unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and/or provide fall protection?
   

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

<image001.jpg>

Sean A. Mickley, Esq.

Gould Cooksey Fennell

979 Beachland Boulevard

Vero Beach, FL 32963

Telephone  772-231-1100      Fax 772-231-2020

smickley@gouldcooksey.commailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com

The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.

Circular 230 Disclosure: In compliance with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sakwa, Stuart H.
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:07 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Is anyone aware of a case that holds that a subcontractor who does not have a certificate of competency for a specialty trade that is required by a county ordinance, but not 489, is barred from enforcing its contract or lien rights?

Stuart H Sakwa
Attorney at Law
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
www.arnstein.comhttp://www.arnstein.com

515 North Flagler Drive
Sixth Floor
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4323
Phone: 561.650.8484
Mobile: 954.261.9598
Fax: 561.802.3082
shsakwa@arnstein.commailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com
<image002.png>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/  <image003.jpg>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/
Serving Clients for 120 Years
Offices in Illinois, Florida, and Wisconsin

This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information.

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify

the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax

advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any

attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot

be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties

that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal

taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

I don't think you can have it both ways. If the condition was so obvious the inspector should have seen it and notified the buyer than I wonder how it can be the type of hidden latent condition that Johnson addresses. I don't believe Johnson covers latent defects that could have been discovered if the buyer had exercised reasonable due diligence.
George

George J. Meyer
Office: 813-223-7000

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul V. DeBianchi [debianchi236@bellsouth.net]
Received: Saturday, 29 Jun 2013, 1:08am
To: George Truitt [George.Truitt@csklegal.com]
CC: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org [clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org]
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

But, there is also the Johnson case that changes "the buyer beware," to "the seller beware."It sounds like you have a good action against the seller.

As to the inspection Company please consider That there may be a fiduciary relationship between you and the inspection company and if the termite damage was so open and obvious as you say, there may have been a breach of fiduciary duty to you. I would think that at least, the inspection Company had a duty to put you on inquiry notice

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:04 AM, George Truitt <George.Truitt@csklegal.commailto:George.Truitt@csklegal.com> wrote:

There is strong case law for the proposition that an owner has no site safety responsibilities to contractor's employees for areas of the property under the contractor's control, unless the owner supervises the contractor's work or dictates means and methods. City of Miami v. Perez is a good example.

489.128 speaks in terms of barring any recovery in law or equity for unlicensed contracting, though I have never seen it used as a defense to a personal injury claim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roberts, Hardy L. [mailto:hroberts@carltonfields.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:11 PM
To: Richard A. Burt
Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Unlicensed contracting is a crime.  I'm not sure what impact that has on the homeowner's claimed liability, but it is worth considering.

On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:29 PM, "Richard A. Burt" <dick@burt-burt.com<mailto:dick@burt-burt.commailto:dick@burt-burt.com%3cmailto:dick@burt-burt.com>> wrote:

The contractor is suing in tort, not contract.

Neither FS 489.128 (dealing with enforceability of a contract for construction), nor the (oral) contract (which does not address/allocate liability for personal injury), nor case law (see Tiara) bars a tort claim arising out of an injury.  Subject to workers compensation statutes (of which I know nothing), in my opinion, the tort claim survives even though a contract claim would be barred.

The duty issue might depend upon the homeowner’s relationship with the claimant: is the claimant an ‘employee’ or an ‘independent contractor’?

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sean A. Mickley

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:11 PM

To: 'Sakwa, Stuart H.'; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Dovetailing off Mr. Sakwa’s post…

Homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor/handyman to perform remedial work, including roofing repair work. The unlicensed contractor/handyman does not have safety fall protection while performing the roofing repair work, falls off the Homeowner’s roof, lands on his feet and breaks his foot. The unlicensed contractor/handyman now sues the Homeowner for negligence asserting, among other things, that the Homeowner owed the unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and provide safety fall protection.

Questions:

1.   Is such a negligence claim arguably barred because he is an unlicensed contractor? If not, can his failure to be licensed under ch. 489, F.S. serve as evidence of negligence for purposes of comparative negligence?
   

2.   As a threshold issue, does a Homeowner owe an unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and/or provide fall protection?
   

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

<image001.jpg>

Sean A. Mickley, Esq.

Gould Cooksey Fennell

979 Beachland Boulevard

Vero Beach, FL 32963

Telephone  772-231-1100      Fax 772-231-2020

smickley@gouldcooksey.com<mailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.commailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com%3cmailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com>

The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.

Circular 230 Disclosure: In compliance with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sakwa, Stuart H.

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:07 PM

To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Is anyone aware of a case that holds that a subcontractor who does not have a certificate of competency for a specialty trade that is required by a county ordinance, but not 489, is barred from enforcing its contract or lien rights?

Stuart H Sakwa

Attorney at Law

ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP

www.arnstein.com<http://www.arnstein.comhttp://www.arnstein.com%3chttp:/www.arnstein.com>

515 North Flagler Drive

Sixth Floor

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4323

Phone: 561.650.8484

Mobile: 954.261.9598

Fax: 561.802.3082

shsakwa@arnstein.com<mailto:shsakwa@arnstein.commailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com%3cmailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com>

<image002.png>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/  <image003.jpg>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/

Serving Clients for 120 Years

Offices in Illinois, Florida, and Wisconsin

This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information.

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify

the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax

advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any

attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot

be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties

that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal

taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

CLC-Discussion mailing list

CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

I don't think you can have it both ways. If the condition was so obvious the inspector should have seen it and notified the buyer than I wonder how it can be the type of hidden latent condition that Johnson addresses. I don't believe Johnson covers latent defects that could have been discovered if the buyer had exercised reasonable due diligence.
George

George J. Meyer
Office: 813-223-7000

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul V. DeBianchi [debianchi236@bellsouth.net]
Received: Saturday, 29 Jun 2013, 1:08am
To: George Truitt [George.Truitt@csklegal.com]
CC: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org [clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org]
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

But, there is also the Johnson case that changes "the buyer beware," to "the seller beware."It sounds like you have a good action against the seller.

As to the inspection Company please consider That there may be a fiduciary relationship between you and the inspection company and if the termite damage was so open and obvious as you say, there may have been a breach of fiduciary duty to you. I would think that at least, the inspection Company had a duty to put you on inquiry notice

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:04 AM, George Truitt <George.Truitt@csklegal.commailto:George.Truitt@csklegal.com> wrote:

There is strong case law for the proposition that an owner has no site safety responsibilities to contractor's employees for areas of the property under the contractor's control, unless the owner supervises the contractor's work or dictates means and methods. City of Miami v. Perez is a good example.

489.128 speaks in terms of barring any recovery in law or equity for unlicensed contracting, though I have never seen it used as a defense to a personal injury claim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roberts, Hardy L. [mailto:hroberts@carltonfields.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:11 PM
To: Richard A. Burt
Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Unlicensed contracting is a crime.  I'm not sure what impact that has on the homeowner's claimed liability, but it is worth considering.

On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:29 PM, "Richard A. Burt" <dick@burt-burt.com<mailto:dick@burt-burt.commailto:dick@burt-burt.com%3cmailto:dick@burt-burt.com>> wrote:

The contractor is suing in tort, not contract.

Neither FS 489.128 (dealing with enforceability of a contract for construction), nor the (oral) contract (which does not address/allocate liability for personal injury), nor case law (see Tiara) bars a tort claim arising out of an injury.  Subject to workers compensation statutes (of which I know nothing), in my opinion, the tort claim survives even though a contract claim would be barred.

The duty issue might depend upon the homeowner’s relationship with the claimant: is the claimant an ‘employee’ or an ‘independent contractor’?

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sean A. Mickley

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:11 PM

To: 'Sakwa, Stuart H.'; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Dovetailing off Mr. Sakwa’s post…

Homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor/handyman to perform remedial work, including roofing repair work. The unlicensed contractor/handyman does not have safety fall protection while performing the roofing repair work, falls off the Homeowner’s roof, lands on his feet and breaks his foot. The unlicensed contractor/handyman now sues the Homeowner for negligence asserting, among other things, that the Homeowner owed the unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and provide safety fall protection.

Questions:

1.   Is such a negligence claim arguably barred because he is an unlicensed contractor? If not, can his failure to be licensed under ch. 489, F.S. serve as evidence of negligence for purposes of comparative negligence?
   

2.   As a threshold issue, does a Homeowner owe an unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and/or provide fall protection?
   

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

<image001.jpg>

Sean A. Mickley, Esq.

Gould Cooksey Fennell

979 Beachland Boulevard

Vero Beach, FL 32963

Telephone  772-231-1100      Fax 772-231-2020

smickley@gouldcooksey.com<mailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.commailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com%3cmailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com>

The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.

Circular 230 Disclosure: In compliance with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sakwa, Stuart H.

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:07 PM

To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Is anyone aware of a case that holds that a subcontractor who does not have a certificate of competency for a specialty trade that is required by a county ordinance, but not 489, is barred from enforcing its contract or lien rights?

Stuart H Sakwa

Attorney at Law

ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP

www.arnstein.com<http://www.arnstein.comhttp://www.arnstein.com%3chttp:/www.arnstein.com>

515 North Flagler Drive

Sixth Floor

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4323

Phone: 561.650.8484

Mobile: 954.261.9598

Fax: 561.802.3082

shsakwa@arnstein.com<mailto:shsakwa@arnstein.commailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com%3cmailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com>

<image002.png>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/  <image003.jpg>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/

Serving Clients for 120 Years

Offices in Illinois, Florida, and Wisconsin

This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information.

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify

the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax

advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any

attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot

be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties

that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal

taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

CLC-Discussion mailing list

CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

I don't think you can have it both ways. If the condition was so obvious the inspector should have seen it and notified the buyer than I wonder how it can be the type of hidden latent condition that Johnson addresses. I don't believe Johnson covers latent defects that could have been discovered if the buyer had exercised reasonable due diligence.

George

George J. Meyer

Office: 813-223-7000

-----Original Message-----

From: Paul V. DeBianchi [debianchi236@bellsouth.net]

Received: Saturday, 29 Jun 2013, 1:08am

To: George Truitt [George.Truitt@csklegal.com]

CC: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org

[clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org]

Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local

license

But, there is also the Johnson case that changes "the buyer beware," to "the seller beware."It sounds like you have a good action against the seller.

As to the inspection Company please consider That there may be a

fiduciary relationship between you and the inspection company and if

the termite damage was so open and obvious as you say, there may have

been a breach of fiduciary duty to you. I would think that at least,

the inspection Company had a duty to put you on inquiry notice

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:04 AM, George Truitt <George.Truitt@csklegal.com<mailto:George.Truitt@csklegal.commailto:George.Truitt@csklegal.com%3cmailto:George.Truitt@csklegal.com>> wrote:

There is strong case law for the proposition that an owner has no site safety responsibilities to contractor's employees for areas of the property under the contractor's control, unless the owner supervises the contractor's work or dictates means and methods. City of Miami v. Perez is a good example.

489.128 speaks in terms of barring any recovery in law or equity for unlicensed contracting, though I have never seen it used as a defense to a personal injury claim.

-----Original Message-----

From: Roberts, Hardy L. [mailto:hroberts@carltonfields.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:11 PM

To: Richard A. Burt

Cc:

clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabamailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flaba

rrpptl.org>

Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local

license

Unlicensed contracting is a crime.  I'm not sure what impact that has on the homeowner's claimed liability, but it is worth considering.

On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:29 PM, "Richard A. Burt" <dick@burt-burt.com<mailto:dick@burt-burt.com<mailto:dick@burt-burt.com%3cmailto:dick@burt-burt.commailto:dick@burt-burt.com%3cmailto:dick@burt-burt.com%3cmailto:dick@burt-burt.com%3cmailto:dick@burt-burt.com>>> wrote:

The contractor is suing in tort, not contract.

Neither FS 489.128 (dealing with enforceability of a contract for construction), nor the (oral) contract (which does not address/allocate liability for personal injury), nor case law (see Tiara) bars a tort claim arising out of an injury.  Subject to workers compensation statutes (of which I know nothing), in my opinion, the tort claim survives even though a contract claim would be barred.

The duty issue might depend upon the homeowner’s relationship with the claimant: is the claimant an ‘employee’ or an ‘independent contractor’?

From:

clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-boumailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bou

nces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrmailto:nces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarr

pptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>>

[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of

Sean A. Mickley

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:11 PM

To: 'Sakwa, Stuart H.';

clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabamailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flaba

rrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-di

scussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:scussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>>

Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local

license

Dovetailing off Mr. Sakwa’s post…

Homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor/handyman to perform remedial work, including roofing repair work. The unlicensed contractor/handyman does not have safety fall protection while performing the roofing repair work, falls off the Homeowner’s roof, lands on his feet and breaks his foot. The unlicensed contractor/handyman now sues the Homeowner for negligence asserting, among other things, that the Homeowner owed the unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and provide safety fall protection.

Questions:

1.   Is such a negligence claim arguably barred because he is an unlicensed contractor? If not, can his failure to be licensed under ch. 489, F.S. serve as evidence of negligence for purposes of comparative negligence?
   

2.   As a threshold issue, does a Homeowner owe an unlicensed contractor/handyman a duty to supervise his work and/or provide fall protection?
   

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

<image001.jpg>

Sean A. Mickley, Esq.

Gould Cooksey Fennell

979 Beachland Boulevard

Vero Beach, FL 32963

Telephone  772-231-1100      Fax 772-231-2020

smickley@gouldcooksey.com<mailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com<mailto:smicmailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com%3cmailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com%3cmailto:smic

kley@gouldcooksey.com%3cmailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.commailto:kley@gouldcooksey.com%3cmailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com>>

The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.

Circular 230 Disclosure: In compliance with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sakwa, Stuart H.

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:07 PM

To:

clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabamailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flaba

rrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-di

scussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:scussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>>

Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed subcontractor for local license

Is anyone aware of a case that holds that a subcontractor who does not have a certificate of competency for a specialty trade that is required by a county ordinance, but not 489, is barred from enforcing its contract or lien rights?

Stuart H Sakwa

Attorney at Law

ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP

www.arnstein.com<http://www.arnstein.com<http://www.arnstein.com%3chtthttp://www.arnstein.com%3chttp:/www.arnstein.com%3chttp:/www.arnstein.com%3chtt

p:/www.arnstein.com>>

515 North Flagler Drive

Sixth Floor

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4323

Phone: 561.650.8484

Mobile: 954.261.9598

Fax: 561.802.3082

shsakwa@arnstein.com<mailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com<mailto:shsakwa@arnstemailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com%3cmailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com%3cmailto:shsakwa@arnste

in.com%3cmailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com>>

<image002.png>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/  <image003.jpg>http://legalnews.arnstein.com/

Serving Clients for 120 Years

Offices in Illinois, Florida, and Wisconsin

This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information.

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please

notify

the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any

federal tax

advice contained in this written or electronic communication,

including any

attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and

it cannot

be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any

tax penalties

that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S.

Federal

taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or

recommending

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

CLC-Discussion mailing list

CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabamailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flaba

rrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:CLC-Di

scussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:scussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>>

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

CLC-Discussion mailing list

CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabamailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flaba

rrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

CLC-Discussion mailing list

CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion