CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can't locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor ("GC") for commercial construction project.

2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.

3. Owner independently engages "sub" contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner's Subs - GC not involved.)

4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.
   *  Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC's permit #.
   *  All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC's permit #.
   GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality's single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

5. Owner's direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.

6. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner's Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

[Board Certified Construction Logo]

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

I would love a forward on this, dealing with a very similar fact pattern on a case

Vinod R. Bajnath

Partner

Admitted in Florida

vbajnath@rlattorneys.commailto:vbajnath@rlattorneys.com

FL Direct Phone & Fax: 786.422.1394tel:786.422.1394

444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 300

Miami, FL  33131

www.rlattorneys.comhttp://www.rlattorneys.com/

This message is confidential and may contain privileged information.  Only the intended recipient is authorized to read or utilize the information contained in this e-mail.  If you receive this message in error, please discard the message and advise the sender by reply e-mail or by phone.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of RPPTL CLC-Discussion clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 3:05:26 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
3. Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.
   *  Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
   *  All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.

GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

1. Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
2. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly

Paul J. Kelly, P.A.

2959 First Avenue North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

[Board Certified Construction Logo]

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

COVID-19 Notice:

Our commitment to our clients is to provide unstoppable service. We are continuing our business operations but are taking preventative measures consistent with CDC, federal and state government recommendations/orders.  We continue to work diligently to respond to our clients’ needs seamlessly via telephone, e-mail and video-conference.  You can count on us.

All the best to you and yours.

Disclaimer

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

Here’s my take:

Both Florida common law and statute impose liability on the licensed general contractor for improper work, regardless of who performed it. To begin, Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes (2022), covering the requirements for general contractors in Florida, provides: “(a) A general, building, or residential contractor, except as otherwise provided in this part, shall be responsible for any construction or alteration of a structural component of a building or structure. . . .”  Fla. Stat. § 489.113 (3)(a) (2022) (emphasis added).  Beyond this, Section 553.79(10), Florida Statutes (2022), imposes responsibility of the “supervision, direction, management, and control of the construction activities” on the permit holder, i.e., the general contractor.  Fla. Stat. § 553.79(10).  Additionally, Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes (2022), mandates the primary qualifying agent “supervise, direct, manage, and control construction activities on a job for which he or she has obtained the building permit.”  Fla. Stat. § 489.105(4).
This duty of care was first recognized in Florida by the Second District Court of Appeals in Mills v. Krauss, 114 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).  Since then, it has been “well established . . . that a duty imposed by Statute or Ordinance, such as the building Code . . . cannot be delegated to an independent contractor.”  Mastrandrea v. J. Mann, Inc., 128 So. 2d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961);  see also Bialkowicz v. Pan Am. Condo. No. 3, Inc., 215 So. 2d 767, 771-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (“The duty of care, with respect to the property of others, imposed by a city building permit upon a general contractor cannot be delegated to an independent sub-contractor.”). Further, the qualifying agent “has the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage, and control construction activities on a job for which he has obtained the building permit.”  ABD Const. Co. v. Diaz, 712 So. 2d 1146, 1147-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Fla. Stat. § 489.105(4)).
A signed affidavit on the building permit application seals the duty to the general contractor.  Recently, in Grande Oaks at Heathrow Association, Inc., the court relied on Bialkowicz and Mastrandrea and held that “by submitting the permit applications for the construction of the [p]roject, [the general contractor] has a non-delegable duty to ensure the Florida Building Code was complied with.”  Grande Oaks at Heathrow Ass'n, Inc. v. Kolter Signature Homes, LLC, No. 2020-CA-003188, 2022 WL 19519049, at *1 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. June 6, 2022).  The permit application submitted by the general contractor read:
I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct.  All provisions of all laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not.

Id. (emphasis added).  As a matter of law, the court found that “[the general contractor’s] non-delegable duties . . . render[ed] [the general contractor] liable for the acts or omissions of its subcontractors on the [p]roject.”  Id. Here, it is clear that GC cannot avoid liability for the rampant construction defects.  There is no factual dispute that GC was the general contractor for the construction. As the licensed contractor that pulled the permits, GC is legally responsible for the failure of any entity or individual on the project, including a sub-contractor, to comply with the terms of the permit application.  Mr. XXXXX, the license holder who pulled the permits on behalf of GC for the project, testified that the GC was responsible to supervise, direct, manage, and control the construction of the Project to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code. [See XXXXXXXXXXXX]. This included the work of the sub-contractors.  Accordingly, even GC admits that it had the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage, and control the construction activities at the Project and has ultimate liability for any violations of the Florida Building Code therein.
Additionally, Mr. XXXXXXXXX, as qualifier for GC, signed the permit for the construction of the Project.  The Contractor’s Affidavit in the permit application reads, in part: “I certify that all the foregoing information is accurate and that all work must be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning.” “All applicable laws regulating construction” naturally includes Florida Building Code. Further, the affidavit is nearly identical to the one relied on by the trial court to couch liability with the general contractor in Grande Oaks at Heathrow Association, Inc.  Accordingly, pursuant to Florida law, GC had a non-delegable duty to construct the Project in compliance with the Florida Building Code.
Moreover, because GC had a non-delegable duty to ensure that construction complied with the Florida Building Code, including the work of the  subcontractors, GC cannot seek to apportion fault to others for breach of that duty.  Under Florida law, “apportionment of fault . . . does not apply when liability is vicarious in nature.”  Cont’l Florida Materials v. Kusherman, 91 So. 3d 159, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing to Grobman v. Posey, 863 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003);  see also Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Importantly:
A distinction must be drawn between apportionment of fault and ultimate liability.  The former allows the finder of fact to determine to what extent, if any, each party or non-party contributed to the loss or injury.  The latter determines who will actually pay for that loss or injury.  The combination of both insures responsibility for one’s own negligence, and ultimately who will pay—and to what extent of—the total loss.
Cont’l Florida Materials, 91 So. 3d at 165.  Furthermore:
Under Florida law, a general contractor’s duty of due care to a property owner is a non-delegable duty subjecting the general contractor to liability for a subcontractor’s negligence.  This is true even if the subcontractor is an independent contractor.  When a general contractor is liable to a property owner on account of a subcontractor’s failure to use due care, the general contractor is entitled to indemnification by the subcontractor.  This downhill flow continues, from special relationship to special relationship, until privity between the downhill parties ends.
CC-Aventura, Inc. v. Weitz Co., LLC, No, 06-21598-CIV, 2009 WL 2136527, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2009) (citations omitted).  Therefore, while GC is liable for all damages, regardless of what is apportioned to an individual subcontractor, GC may be entitled to indemnification from that subcontractor.
In sum, both Florida statutes and common law impose the ultimate responsibility on the general contractor to use due care, and this responsibility may not be committed to an independent contractor. Thus, GC’s attempt to distance itself from the faulty workmanship of any subcontractor runs contrary to the evidence presented and Florida law.  While GC may be able to eventually seek indemnification from the subcontractors, apportionment is not appropriate.

[cid:image001.png@01D98CD2.F74734C0]http://napleslaw.com/
Debbie S. Crockett​​​​
Attorney at Law
Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
202 S. Rome Ave., Suite 175
Tampa,
FL
33606
(813) 225-2684tel:(813)%20225-2684
dscrockett@napleslaw.commailto:dscrockett@napleslaw.com
www.napleslaw.comhttps://www.napleslaw.com/
Main Office
821 5th Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
(239) 261‑9300

This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:09 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

CAUTION: -External Sender-

Interested in this discussion ..
Sent from my iPhone

On May 21, 2023, at 1:42 PM, RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:

Tough question.  If the GC's had a clause in it disclaiming all liability for work done by others at direction or contract with the owner the GC should not be liable.  However, if the work performed by others had to be done before the GC could do its part of the work, the GC may have had a duty to ensure work by others  that is going to be covered up or become part of the final product is done correctly.  In those cases, a decent argument could be made that the GC failed to properly inspect the work of others and should not have performed its own work on top of defective work.

This sounds like an interesting case.

Ed

Edward J. Kinberg
Attorney | Stewart Law CS, LLC.
1033 Florida Avenue South, Suite B Rockledge, Florida 32955
321 541-6845 a: e, FL 32955

Review by anyone other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may be unlawful. You must delete this message and any copy of it (in any form) without disclosing it if you believe this message has been sent to you in error. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to desirestewart@stewartlawcs.commailto:desirestewart@stewartlawcs.com or by telephone at (321)541-6845.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 3:20 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
3. Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.

 *   Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
 *   All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.

GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

1. Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
2. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

<image001.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

[cid:image003.png@01D98CD1.FB288310]http://www.kubickidraper.com
Michelle M. Kronehttp://www.kubickidraper.com/staff_detail11.php?MemberID=33
Shareholder
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Construction Practice Group, Co-Chair
Direct  (239) 461-8103
Fax      (239) 939-0700
mmk@kubickidraper.commailto:mmk@kubickidraper.com
13350 Metro Parkway Suite 201<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350 Metro Parkway Suite 201+Fort Myers,+Florida+33966>
Fort Myers, Florida 33966<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350 Metro Parkway Suite 201+Fort Myers,+Florida+33966>

[cid:image004.png@01D98CD1.FB288310]https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper [cid:image005.png@01D98CD1.FB288310] https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper  [cid:image006.png@01D98CD1.FB288310] https://www.instagram.com/kubicki_draper  Committed to DEI, and proudly RING certifiedhttps://ringcertification.org [cid:image007.png@01D98CD1.FB288310] http://

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

Disclaimer

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

Under your fact pattern, whereby GC did not authorize Owner’s other Contractor(s) to perform work under GC’ permit, I think there is a strong argument to be made that GC is not liable for the defective work of Owners other contractors.

Moreover, an argument could be made that Owner is liable to GC for the cost, reasonable profit and delay damages to the extent, if any, that the building official, etc. requires GC to perform additional work to the close out the GC’ master permit, etc., as a result of the defective work of Owner’s other contractors.

The timing of GC’ actual knowledge of the other contractors Work may also be relevant.

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator

Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.

3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info

On May 19, 2023, at 3:16 PM, RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:

 @font-face { font-family: "Cambria Math"; }
@font-face { font-family: Calibri; }
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }
span.EmailStyle17 { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: windowtext; }
.MsoChpDefault { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }
@page WordSection1 { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 1in; }
div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }
ol { margin-bottom: 0in; }
ul { margin-bottom: 0in; }CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
3. Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.
5. Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
6. All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.

GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

5. Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
6. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit? Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly

Paul J. Kelly, P.A.

2959 First Avenue North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

<image001.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

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

The case you cited below may also be distinguishable as it held that the GC was responsible for “its” subcontractors.  A contractor in direct privity is not a subcontractor to the GC.

[cid:NewLogo_a283c906-48ba-4aac-828a-9b390c86f75a.png]

Andrew J Foti

100 N.E. 3rd Ave
Suite 280

Ft.Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel: 954-522-3636

Direct: 954-331-2512

AJF@katzbarron.com

www.katzbarron.com

This email may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender above by telephone (collect call if necessary) and delete the email from your system.To comply with the requirements of Circular 230, which provides regulations governing certain conduct of U.S. tax lawyers giving written advice with respect to U.S. tax matters, please be aware that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used by you or any other person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

[cid:considertheenvironment_ab53c1e7-f496-462f-b72d-1718abc77d90.png]
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:31 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Under your fact pattern, whereby GC did not authorize Owner’s other Contractor(s) to perform work under GC’ permit, I think there is a strong argument to be made that GC is not liable for the defective work of Owners other contractors.

Moreover, an argument could be made that Owner is liable to GC for the cost, reasonable profit and delay damages to the extent, if any, that the building official, etc. requires GC to perform additional work to the close out the GC’ master permit, etc., as a result of the defective work of Owner’s other contractors.

The timing of GC’ actual knowledge of the other contractors Work may also be relevant.

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator

Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.

3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202x-apple-data-detectors://2/0
Coral Gables, FL 33134x-apple-data-detectors://2/0
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500tel:(305)%20444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327tel:(305)%20675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.commailto:rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.infohttp://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info

[http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/E9FCC9C6B2384C36852574FA00690DDC/$FILE/ConstructionLaw.jpg?OpenElement]

On May 19, 2023, at 3:16 PM, RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:

CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
3. Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.

*   Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
*   All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.

GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

1. Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
2. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

<image001.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

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

Additional comments are welcome, but I wanted to thank you all for taking the time to contribute to the discussion.

Your thoughts are appreciated and I will keep the CLC posted as to the eventual resolution.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

[Board Certified Construction Logo]

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:46 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

The case you cited below may also be distinguishable as it held that the GC was responsible for “its” subcontractors.  A contractor in direct privity is not a subcontractor to the GC.

[cid:image002.png@01D98D43.98B5D940]

Andrew J Foti

100 N.E. 3rd Ave
Suite 280

Ft.Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel: 954-522-3636

Direct: 954-331-2512

AJF@katzbarron.commailto:AJF@katzbarron.com

www.katzbarron.comhttp://www.katzbarron.com

This email may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender above by telephone (collect call if necessary) and delete the email from your system.To comply with the requirements of Circular 230, which provides regulations governing certain conduct of U.S. tax lawyers giving written advice with respect to U.S. tax matters, please be aware that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used by you or any other person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

[cid:image003.png@01D98D43.98B5D940]
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:31 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Under your fact pattern, whereby GC did not authorize Owner’s other Contractor(s) to perform work under GC’ permit, I think there is a strong argument to be made that GC is not liable for the defective work of Owners other contractors.

Moreover, an argument could be made that Owner is liable to GC for the cost, reasonable profit and delay damages to the extent, if any, that the building official, etc. requires GC to perform additional work to the close out the GC’ master permit, etc., as a result of the defective work of Owner’s other contractors.

The timing of GC’ actual knowledge of the other contractors Work may also be relevant.

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator

Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202x-apple-data-detectors://2/0
Coral Gables, FL 33134x-apple-data-detectors://2/0
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500tel:(305)%20444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327tel:(305)%20675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.commailto:rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.infohttp://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info

[http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/E9FCC9C6B2384C36852574FA00690DDC/$FILE/ConstructionLaw.jpg?OpenElement]

On May 19, 2023, at 3:16 PM, RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:

CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
3. Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.

 *   Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
 *   All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.

GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

1. Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
2. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

<image001.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

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

Wow. If a Parent is liable for the torts of a son or daughter, does that mean that an Uncle or Aunt is liable for the torts of a nephew or niece, since they are the son or daughter of someone?

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 5:30 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Here’s my take:

Both Florida common law and statute impose liability on the licensed general contractor for improper work, regardless of who performed it. To begin, Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes (2022), covering the requirements for general contractors in Florida, provides: “(a) A general, building, or residential contractor, except as otherwise provided in this part, shall be responsible for any construction or alteration of a structural component of a building or structure. . . .”  Fla. Stat. § 489.113 (3)(a) (2022) (emphasis added).  Beyond this, Section 553.79(10), Florida Statutes (2022), imposes responsibility of the “supervision, direction, management, and control of the construction activities” on the permit holder, i.e., the general contractor.  Fla. Stat. § 553.79(10).  Additionally, Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes (2022), mandates the primary qualifying agent “supervise, direct, manage, and control construction activities on a job for which he or she has obtained the building permit.”  Fla. Stat. § 489.105(4).
This duty of care was first recognized in Florida by the Second District Court of Appeals in Mills v. Krauss, 114 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).  Since then, it has been “well established . . . that a duty imposed by Statute or Ordinance, such as the building Code . . . cannot be delegated to an independent contractor.”  Mastrandrea v. J. Mann, Inc., 128 So. 2d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961);  see also Bialkowicz v. Pan Am. Condo. No. 3, Inc., 215 So. 2d 767, 771-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (“The duty of care, with respect to the property of others, imposed by a city building permit upon a general contractor cannot be delegated to an independent sub-contractor.”). Further, the qualifying agent “has the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage, and control construction activities on a job for which he has obtained the building permit.”  ABD Const. Co. v. Diaz, 712 So. 2d 1146, 1147-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Fla. Stat. § 489.105(4)).
A signed affidavit on the building permit application seals the duty to the general contractor.  Recently, in Grande Oaks at Heathrow Association, Inc., the court relied on Bialkowicz and Mastrandrea and held that “by submitting the permit applications for the construction of the [p]roject, [the general contractor] has a non-delegable duty to ensure the Florida Building Code was complied with.”  Grande Oaks at Heathrow Ass'n, Inc. v. Kolter Signature Homes, LLC, No. 2020-CA-003188, 2022 WL 19519049, at *1 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. June 6, 2022).  The permit application submitted by the general contractor read:
I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct.  All provisions of all laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not.

Id. (emphasis added).  As a matter of law, the court found that “[the general contractor’s] non-delegable duties . . . render[ed] [the general contractor] liable for the acts or omissions of its subcontractors on the [p]roject.”  Id. Here, it is clear that GC cannot avoid liability for the rampant construction defects.  There is no factual dispute that GC was the general contractor for the construction. As the licensed contractor that pulled the permits, GC is legally responsible for the failure of any entity or individual on the project, including a sub-contractor, to comply with the terms of the permit application.  Mr. XXXXX, the license holder who pulled the permits on behalf of GC for the project, testified that the GC was responsible to supervise, direct, manage, and control the construction of the Project to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code. [See XXXXXXXXXXXX]. This included the work of the sub-contractors.  Accordingly, even GC admits that it had the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage, and control the construction activities at the Project and has ultimate liability for any violations of the Florida Building Code therein.
Additionally, Mr. XXXXXXXXX, as qualifier for GC, signed the permit for the construction of the Project.  The Contractor’s Affidavit in the permit application reads, in part: “I certify that all the foregoing information is accurate and that all work must be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning.” “All applicable laws regulating construction” naturally includes Florida Building Code. Further, the affidavit is nearly identical to the one relied on by the trial court to couch liability with the general contractor in Grande Oaks at Heathrow Association, Inc.  Accordingly, pursuant to Florida law, GC had a non-delegable duty to construct the Project in compliance with the Florida Building Code.
Moreover, because GC had a non-delegable duty to ensure that construction complied with the Florida Building Code, including the work of the  subcontractors, GC cannot seek to apportion fault to others for breach of that duty.  Under Florida law, “apportionment of fault . . . does not apply when liability is vicarious in nature.”  Cont’l Florida Materials v. Kusherman, 91 So. 3d 159, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing to Grobman v. Posey, 863 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003);  see also Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Importantly:
A distinction must be drawn between apportionment of fault and ultimate liability.  The former allows the finder of fact to determine to what extent, if any, each party or non-party contributed to the loss or injury.  The latter determines who will actually pay for that loss or injury.  The combination of both insures responsibility for one’s own negligence, and ultimately who will pay—and to what extent of—the total loss.
Cont’l Florida Materials, 91 So. 3d at 165.  Furthermore:
Under Florida law, a general contractor’s duty of due care to a property owner is a non-delegable duty subjecting the general contractor to liability for a subcontractor’s negligence.  This is true even if the subcontractor is an independent contractor.  When a general contractor is liable to a property owner on account of a subcontractor’s failure to use due care, the general contractor is entitled to indemnification by the subcontractor.  This downhill flow continues, from special relationship to special relationship, until privity between the downhill parties ends.
CC-Aventura, Inc. v. Weitz Co., LLC, No, 06-21598-CIV, 2009 WL 2136527, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2009) (citations omitted).  Therefore, while GC is liable for all damages, regardless of what is apportioned to an individual subcontractor, GC may be entitled to indemnification from that subcontractor.
In sum, both Florida statutes and common law impose the ultimate responsibility on the general contractor to use due care, and this responsibility may not be committed to an independent contractor. Thus, GC’s attempt to distance itself from the faulty workmanship of any subcontractor runs contrary to the evidence presented and Florida law.  While GC may be able to eventually seek indemnification from the subcontractors, apportionment is not appropriate.

[cid:image001.png@01D98F59.4E961420]http://napleslaw.com/
Debbie S. Crockett​​​​
Attorney at Law
Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
202 S. Rome Ave., Suite 175
Tampa,
FL
33606
(813) 225-2684tel:(813)%20225-2684
dscrockett@napleslaw.commailto:dscrockett@napleslaw.com
www.napleslaw.comhttps://www.napleslaw.com/
Main Office
821 5th Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
(239) 261‑9300

This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:09 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

CAUTION: -External Sender-

Interested in this discussion ..
Sent from my iPhone

On May 21, 2023, at 1:42 PM, RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:

Tough question.  If the GC's had a clause in it disclaiming all liability for work done by others at direction or contract with the owner the GC should not be liable.  However, if the work performed by others had to be done before the GC could do its part of the work, the GC may have had a duty to ensure work by others  that is going to be covered up or become part of the final product is done correctly.  In those cases, a decent argument could be made that the GC failed to properly inspect the work of others and should not have performed its own work on top of defective work.

This sounds like an interesting case.

Ed

Edward J. Kinberg
Attorney | Stewart Law CS, LLC.
1033 Florida Avenue South, Suite B Rockledge, Florida 32955
321 541-6845 a: e, FL 32955

Review by anyone other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may be unlawful. You must delete this message and any copy of it (in any form) without disclosing it if you believe this message has been sent to you in error. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to desirestewart@stewartlawcs.commailto:desirestewart@stewartlawcs.com or by telephone at (321)541-6845.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 3:20 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
3. Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.

 *   Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
 *   All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.

GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

1. Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
2. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

<image001.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

[cid:image002.png@01D98F59.4E961420]http://www.kubickidraper.com/
Michelle M. Kronehttp://www.kubickidraper.com/staff_detail11.php?MemberID=33
Shareholder
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Construction Practice Group, Co-Chair
Direct  (239) 461-8103
Fax      (239) 939-0700
mmk@kubickidraper.commailto:mmk@kubickidraper.com
13350 Metro Parkway Suite 201http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20201+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966
Fort Myers, Florida 33966http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20201+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966

[cid:image003.png@01D98F59.4E961420]https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper [cid:image004.png@01D98F59.4E961420] https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper  [cid:image005.png@01D98F59.4E961420] https://www.instagram.com/kubicki_draper  Committed to DEI, and proudly RING certifiedhttps://ringcertification.org [cid:image006.png@01D98F59.4E961420] http://

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

Disclaimer

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

I’ve defended “GC”s against the issue below in a residential setting. I made the argument that since the owner was hiring multiple contractors to perform different scopes at the same project the owner needed to pull the permit for the project. It never made it before the court though.  Here it seemed that the “subcontractors” snuck into the GC’s permit without notice or privity. A  57.105  is out but there are a lot of defenses that could be raised against the owner based on the subcontractor’s malfeasance, especially if the owner knew they were pulling the permits. If the GC was aware or should have been aware, then the GC could have picked up that nondelegable duty.

Also I can see a Fabre defense by parents naming the aunts and uncles as tortfeasors. I’ve seen crazier.

Thanks,
Jack

[cid:image007.png@01D98FBD.D55EA1C0]
Jack Taylor | Attorney
Direct Line: (321) 204-4012

Angius & Terry LLPhttp://angius-terry.com/
Ft. Lauderdale      |      Orlando      |      Palm Harbor
(954) 839-6200          (407) 624-3070          (727) 474-0200
www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com>

Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.comhttp://constructiondefectlaw.com/! Don’t forget to like us on social media!  [Facebook] https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/  [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz  [A close up of a sign  Description automatically generated] https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 10:37 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Wow. If a Parent is liable for the torts of a son or daughter, does that mean that an Uncle or Aunt is liable for the torts of a nephew or niece, since they are the son or daughter of someone?

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 5:30 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Here’s my take:

Both Florida common law and statute impose liability on the licensed general contractor for improper work, regardless of who performed it. To begin, Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes (2022), covering the requirements for general contractors in Florida, provides: “(a) A general, building, or residential contractor, except as otherwise provided in this part, shall be responsible for any construction or alteration of a structural component of a building or structure. . . .”  Fla. Stat. § 489.113 (3)(a) (2022) (emphasis added).  Beyond this, Section 553.79(10), Florida Statutes (2022), imposes responsibility of the “supervision, direction, management, and control of the construction activities” on the permit holder, i.e., the general contractor.  Fla. Stat. § 553.79(10).  Additionally, Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes (2022), mandates the primary qualifying agent “supervise, direct, manage, and control construction activities on a job for which he or she has obtained the building permit.”  Fla. Stat. § 489.105(4).
This duty of care was first recognized in Florida by the Second District Court of Appeals in Mills v. Krauss, 114 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).  Since then, it has been “well established . . . that a duty imposed by Statute or Ordinance, such as the building Code . . . cannot be delegated to an independent contractor.”  Mastrandrea v. J. Mann, Inc., 128 So. 2d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961);  see also Bialkowicz v. Pan Am. Condo. No. 3, Inc., 215 So. 2d 767, 771-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (“The duty of care, with respect to the property of others, imposed by a city building permit upon a general contractor cannot be delegated to an independent sub-contractor.”). Further, the qualifying agent “has the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage, and control construction activities on a job for which he has obtained the building permit.”  ABD Const. Co. v. Diaz, 712 So. 2d 1146, 1147-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Fla. Stat. § 489.105(4)).
A signed affidavit on the building permit application seals the duty to the general contractor.  Recently, in Grande Oaks at Heathrow Association, Inc., the court relied on Bialkowicz and Mastrandrea and held that “by submitting the permit applications for the construction of the [p]roject, [the general contractor] has a non-delegable duty to ensure the Florida Building Code was complied with.”  Grande Oaks at Heathrow Ass'n, Inc. v. Kolter Signature Homes, LLC, No. 2020-CA-003188, 2022 WL 19519049, at *1 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. June 6, 2022).  The permit application submitted by the general contractor read:
I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct.  All provisions of all laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not.

Id. (emphasis added).  As a matter of law, the court found that “[the general contractor’s] non-delegable duties . . . render[ed] [the general contractor] liable for the acts or omissions of its subcontractors on the [p]roject.”  Id. Here, it is clear that GC cannot avoid liability for the rampant construction defects.  There is no factual dispute that GC was the general contractor for the construction. As the licensed contractor that pulled the permits, GC is legally responsible for the failure of any entity or individual on the project, including a sub-contractor, to comply with the terms of the permit application.  Mr. XXXXX, the license holder who pulled the permits on behalf of GC for the project, testified that the GC was responsible to supervise, direct, manage, and control the construction of the Project to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code. [See XXXXXXXXXXXX]. This included the work of the sub-contractors.  Accordingly, even GC admits that it had the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage, and control the construction activities at the Project and has ultimate liability for any violations of the Florida Building Code therein.
Additionally, Mr. XXXXXXXXX, as qualifier for GC, signed the permit for the construction of the Project.  The Contractor’s Affidavit in the permit application reads, in part: “I certify that all the foregoing information is accurate and that all work must be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning.” “All applicable laws regulating construction” naturally includes Florida Building Code. Further, the affidavit is nearly identical to the one relied on by the trial court to couch liability with the general contractor in Grande Oaks at Heathrow Association, Inc.  Accordingly, pursuant to Florida law, GC had a non-delegable duty to construct the Project in compliance with the Florida Building Code.
Moreover, because GC had a non-delegable duty to ensure that construction complied with the Florida Building Code, including the work of the  subcontractors, GC cannot seek to apportion fault to others for breach of that duty.  Under Florida law, “apportionment of fault . . . does not apply when liability is vicarious in nature.”  Cont’l Florida Materials v. Kusherman, 91 So. 3d 159, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing to Grobman v. Posey, 863 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003);  see also Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Importantly:
A distinction must be drawn between apportionment of fault and ultimate liability.  The former allows the finder of fact to determine to what extent, if any, each party or non-party contributed to the loss or injury.  The latter determines who will actually pay for that loss or injury.  The combination of both insures responsibility for one’s own negligence, and ultimately who will pay—and to what extent of—the total loss.
Cont’l Florida Materials, 91 So. 3d at 165.  Furthermore:
Under Florida law, a general contractor’s duty of due care to a property owner is a non-delegable duty subjecting the general contractor to liability for a subcontractor’s negligence.  This is true even if the subcontractor is an independent contractor.  When a general contractor is liable to a property owner on account of a subcontractor’s failure to use due care, the general contractor is entitled to indemnification by the subcontractor.  This downhill flow continues, from special relationship to special relationship, until privity between the downhill parties ends.
CC-Aventura, Inc. v. Weitz Co., LLC, No, 06-21598-CIV, 2009 WL 2136527, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2009) (citations omitted).  Therefore, while GC is liable for all damages, regardless of what is apportioned to an individual subcontractor, GC may be entitled to indemnification from that subcontractor.
In sum, both Florida statutes and common law impose the ultimate responsibility on the general contractor to use due care, and this responsibility may not be committed to an independent contractor. Thus, GC’s attempt to distance itself from the faulty workmanship of any subcontractor runs contrary to the evidence presented and Florida law.  While GC may be able to eventually seek indemnification from the subcontractors, apportionment is not appropriate.

[cid:image008.png@01D98FBD.D55EA1C0]http://napleslaw.com/
Debbie S. Crockett​​​​
Attorney at Law
Cheffy Passidomo, P.A.
202 S. Rome Ave., Suite 175
Tampa,
FL
33606
(813) 225-2684tel:(813)%20225-2684
dscrockett@napleslaw.commailto:dscrockett@napleslaw.com
www.napleslaw.comhttps://www.napleslaw.com/
Main Office
821 5th Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
(239) 261‑9300

This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:09 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

CAUTION: -External Sender-

Interested in this discussion ..
Sent from my iPhone

On May 21, 2023, at 1:42 PM, RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:

Tough question.  If the GC's had a clause in it disclaiming all liability for work done by others at direction or contract with the owner the GC should not be liable.  However, if the work performed by others had to be done before the GC could do its part of the work, the GC may have had a duty to ensure work by others  that is going to be covered up or become part of the final product is done correctly.  In those cases, a decent argument could be made that the GC failed to properly inspect the work of others and should not have performed its own work on top of defective work.

This sounds like an interesting case.

Ed

Edward J. Kinberg
Attorney | Stewart Law CS, LLC.
1033 Florida Avenue South, Suite B Rockledge, Florida 32955
321 541-6845 a: e, FL 32955

Review by anyone other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may be unlawful. You must delete this message and any copy of it (in any form) without disclosing it if you believe this message has been sent to you in error. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to desirestewart@stewartlawcs.commailto:desirestewart@stewartlawcs.com or by telephone at (321)541-6845.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 3:20 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

1. Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
2. GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
3. Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
4. The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.

 *   Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
 *   All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.

GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

1. Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
2. Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

<image001.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

[cid:image009.png@01D98FBD.D55EA1C0]http://www.kubickidraper.com/
Michelle M. Kronehttp://www.kubickidraper.com/staff_detail11.php?MemberID=33
Shareholder
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Construction Practice Group, Co-Chair
Direct  (239) 461-8103
Fax      (239) 939-0700
mmk@kubickidraper.commailto:mmk@kubickidraper.com
13350 Metro Parkway Suite 201http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20201+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966
Fort Myers, Florida 33966http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20201+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966

[cid:image010.png@01D98FBD.D55EA1C0]https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper [cid:image011.png@01D98FBD.D55EA1C0] https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper  [cid:image012.png@01D98FBD.D55EA1C0] https://www.instagram.com/kubicki_draper  Committed to DEI, and proudly RING certifiedhttps://ringcertification.org [cid:image013.png@01D98FBD.D55EA1C0] http://

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

Disclaimer

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website.