GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability
Good Morning,
Few questions:
Did the GC know that subs were pulling permits under their permit?
If so, are there any documented notices directly from the GC directing the
owner to cease such behavior?
Are there any notices from the GC directing the subcontractors to refrain
from performing any work under the GC license?
I believe some answers to these questions would help with understanding the
‘course of conduct’, and possibly eliminate most of the gray areas with the
owner’s and subcontractor’s expectations.
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 3:20 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <
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.
1. Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job
Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
2. 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
https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959+First+Avenue+North+%0D%0A+St.+Petersburg,+Florida+33713?entry=gmail&source=g
under the general contractors permit? Case law is welcome.
Thank you.
Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959+First+Avenue+North+%0D%0A+St.+Petersburg,+Florida+33713?entry=gmail&source=g
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959+First+Avenue+North+%0D%0A+St.+Petersburg,+Florida+33713?entry=gmail&source=g
[image: 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.
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
--
OT Delancy
And was the scope of the Owner’s separate contractors (since they’re not really subs) within the GC’s original contracted and permitted scope of work? Or was their work excluded from it explicitly?
Bruce Partington | Shareholder
Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law
bpartington@clarkpartington.commailto:bpartington@clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399
CLARK PARTINGTON
Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32502
clarkpartington.comhttps://clarkpartington.com/
[cid:logo4_d1062d3d-30e4-47df-99af-a59488723ed9.jpg]http://clarkpartington.com/
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:11 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability
Good Morning,
Few questions:
Did the GC know that subs were pulling permits under their permit?
If so, are there any documented notices directly from the GC directing the owner to cease such behavior?
Are there any notices from the GC directing the subcontractors to refrain from performing any work under the GC license?
I believe some answers to these questions would help with understanding the ‘course of conduct’, and possibly eliminate most of the gray areas with the owner’s and subcontractor’s expectations.
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:
- Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
- GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
- Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
- 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.)
- Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
- 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 https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g under the general contractors permit? Case law is welcome.
Thank you.
Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue Northhttps://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g
[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.
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/33e1c195/n_jAkeZq0E2V5OsS3WtGkA?u=http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
OT Delancy
Good Morning Bruce,
Thank you for the thoughts. However, the post to which you responded was an errant repost – that I did not initiate. (weird)
As to resolution of the case, the owner and GC reached an agreement without need for judicial determination.
As to the municipal permitting procedure, I believe the same was created to allow for municipal convenience in issuing permits, with no thought as to the legal implications of permitting relationships.
Good clean fun!
Thanks again.
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: Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:17 AM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability
And was the scope of the Owner’s separate contractors (since they’re not really subs) within the GC’s original contracted and permitted scope of work? Or was their work excluded from it explicitly?
Bruce Partington | Shareholder
Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law
bpartington@clarkpartington.commailto:bpartington@clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399
CLARK PARTINGTON
Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32502
clarkpartington.comhttps://clarkpartington.com/
[cid:image002.jpg@01D9D1BD.7BFBBD60]http://clarkpartington.com/
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: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:11 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability
Good Morning,
Few questions:
Did the GC know that subs were pulling permits under their permit?
If so, are there any documented notices directly from the GC directing the owner to cease such behavior?
Are there any notices from the GC directing the subcontractors to refrain from performing any work under the GC license?
I believe some answers to these questions would help with understanding the ‘course of conduct’, and possibly eliminate most of the gray areas with the owner’s and subcontractor’s expectations.
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:
- Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
- GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
- Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
- 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.)
- Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
- 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 https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g under the general contractors permit? Case law is welcome.
Thank you.
Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue Northhttps://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g
[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.
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/33e1c195/n_jAkeZq0E2V5OsS3WtGkA?u=http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
OT Delancy
Glad to know it was resolved, Paul.
Yes, this is the stuff we "live for"...
Bruce Partington | Shareholder
bpartington@clarkpartington.commailto:bpartington@clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399callto:(850)%20432-1399
CLARK PARTINGTON
Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32502
clarkpartington.comhttps://clarkpartington.com/
[cid:logo4_09e57621-d955-46d0-aad5-1c620e3975ef.jpg]
Bruce Partington | Shareholder
Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law
bpartington@clarkpartington.commailto:bpartington@clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399
CLARK PARTINGTON
Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32502
clarkpartington.comhttps://clarkpartington.com/
[cid:logo4_d1062d3d-30e4-47df-99af-a59488723ed9.jpg]http://clarkpartington.com/
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, August 18, 2023 10:02:47 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability
Good Morning Bruce,
Thank you for the thoughts. However, the post to which you responded was an errant repost – that I did not initiate. (weird)
As to resolution of the case, the owner and GC reached an agreement without need for judicial determination.
As to the municipal permitting procedure, I believe the same was created to allow for municipal convenience in issuing permits, with no thought as to the legal implications of permitting relationships.
Good clean fun!
Thanks again.
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: Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:17 AM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability
And was the scope of the Owner’s separate contractors (since they’re not really subs) within the GC’s original contracted and permitted scope of work? Or was their work excluded from it explicitly?
Bruce Partington | Shareholder
Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law
bpartington@clarkpartington.commailto:bpartington@clarkpartington.com | (850) 432-1399
CLARK PARTINGTON
Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32502
clarkpartington.comhttps://link.edgepilot.com/s/dad603d1/7YyobTskSkqufCy-TTVkJQ?u=https://clarkpartington.com/
[cid:image002.jpg@01D9D1BD.7BFBBD60]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/8e767533/IHHvaULzW0SYQZRs30cuhA?u=http://clarkpartington.com/
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: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:11 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability
Good Morning,
Few questions:
Did the GC know that subs were pulling permits under their permit?
If so, are there any documented notices directly from the GC directing the owner to cease such behavior?
Are there any notices from the GC directing the subcontractors to refrain from performing any work under the GC license?
I believe some answers to these questions would help with understanding the ‘course of conduct’, and possibly eliminate most of the gray areas with the owner’s and subcontractor’s expectations.
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:
- Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
- GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
- Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
- 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.)
- Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
- 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 https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g under the general contractors permit? Case law is welcome.
Thank you.
Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue Northhttps://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g
[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.
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/33e1c195/n_jAkeZq0E2V5OsS3WtGkA?u=http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
OT Delancy
