I've dealt with that exact issue before....make sure you read the HOA or condo docs on the responsibility of the association and owners respectively for roofs. In my case there was important language in that document that changed everyone's perspective.

Michael Romm

Michael R. Romm, P.A.

North Office: 4660 North University Drive

Lauderhill, FL 33351

South Office: 1213 S. 30th Avenue, Suite 2

Hollywood, FL 33020

Phone: (954) 557-8002

Fax: (954) 208-0022

EMAIL: mromm@rommlaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information and all attachments contained in this electronic communication are legally privileged and confidential information, subject to the attorney-client privilege and intended only for the use of intended recipients. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please permanently remove any copies of this message from your system and do not retain any copies, whether in electronic or physical form or otherwise. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity
required?
From: Jason L Molder <Jason@bmwlawyers.net>
Date: Fri, October 26, 2012 4:28 pm
To: John Trawick <john@coastalalg.com>
Cc: "clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org"
<clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

Wouldn't this be a property damage claim as opposed to a construction defect claim? In such a case, 558 would not apply. However, if the townhomes share a single roof and the association contracted for the work, possibly there might be 558 applicability here. Just a thought. I could be wrong.

Jason L. Molder | Of Counsel | BENSON, MUCCI & WEISS, PL

5561 N. University Dr., Suite 102

Coral Springs, Florida 33067

Phone 954.323.1023 | Fax 954.323.1013

jason@bmwlawyers.net | www.bmwlawyers.net

Note: This email transmission may contain confidential and/or privileged information, and is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, printing, storing, copying, or distribution of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and do not retain any electronic or hard copies of this transmission that you may have.

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to United States Treasury Department Circular 230, please be advised that, unless expressly stated otherwise in writing, this communication (including any and all attachments appended hereto) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax-related penalties, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:24 PM, John Trawick <john@coastalalg.com> wrote:

An owner claims that my client, a roofing contractor, damaged his roof while my client was replacing an adjoining townhouse roof. The owner claims that as a result of the roof damage, water entered his unit and cause secondary damage to sheetrock, cabinets, etc. I am inclined to tell the owner that until he complies with 558, there’s nothing to discuss. The definitions in 558 do not appear to limit the application of 558 to only those situations where there is privity between the owner and contractor. Instead, 558 would indeed appear to govern this situation, notwithstanding the absence of privity. Am I wrong?

<image002.jpg>

---

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

---

---

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

In this case, the work was contracted by one townhouse owner for work only to that owner’s roof, which was not considered common area.  All units adjoin each other and one A-frame roof terminates into the next.  It was the “weaving” of the two roofs together, at the seam (which is over the party wall), which is alleged to have been done defectively, leading to the damage to the adjacent unit interior.

[cid:image001.jpg@01CDB399.8C0DB850]

From: mromm@rommlaw.com [mailto:mromm@rommlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:38 PM
To: Jason L Molder; John Trawick
Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: RE: [CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity required?

I've dealt with that exact issue before....make sure you read the HOA or condo docs on the responsibility of the association and owners respectively for roofs.  In my case there was important language in that document that changed everyone's perspective.

Michael Romm
Michael R. Romm, P.A.
North Office:  4660 North University Drive
Lauderhill, FL 33351
South Office: 1213 S. 30th Avenue, Suite 2
Hollywood, FL 33020
Phone: (954) 557-8002
Fax:  (954) 208-0022
EMAIL:  mromm@rommlaw.commailto:mromm@rommlaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information and all attachments contained in this electronic communication are legally privileged and confidential information, subject to the attorney-client privilege and intended only for the use of intended recipients. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please permanently remove any copies of this message from your system and do not retain any copies, whether in electronic or physical form or otherwise. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity
required?
From: Jason L Molder <Jason@bmwlawyers.netmailto:Jason@bmwlawyers.net>
Date: Fri, October 26, 2012 4:28 pm
To: John Trawick <john@coastalalg.commailto:john@coastalalg.com>
Cc: "clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org"
<clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>

Wouldn't this be a property damage claim as opposed to a construction defect claim?  In such a case, 558 would not apply.  However, if the townhomes share a single roof and the association contracted for the work, possibly there might be 558 applicability here.  Just a thought.  I could be wrong.

Jason L. Molder | Of Counsel | BENSON, MUCCI & WEISS, PL
5561 N. University Dr., Suite 102
Coral Springs, Florida 33067
Phone 954.323.1023 | Fax 954.323.1013
jason@bmwlawyers.netmailto:jason@bmwlawyers.net | www.bmwlawyers.nethttp://www.bmwlawyers.net/

[cid:image002.jpg@01CDB399.8C0DB850]

Note: This email transmission may contain confidential and/or privileged information, and is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, printing, storing, copying, or distribution of this transmission is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and do not retain  any electronic or hard copies of this transmission that you may have.

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to United States Treasury Department Circular 230, please be advised that, unless expressly stated otherwise in writing, this communication (including any and all attachments appended hereto) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax-related penalties, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:24 PM, John Trawick <john@coastalalg.commailto:john@coastalalg.com> wrote:

An owner claims that my client, a roofing contractor, damaged his roof while my client was replacing an adjoining townhouse roof.  The owner claims that as a result of the roof damage, water entered his unit and cause secondary damage to sheetrock, cabinets, etc.  I am inclined to tell the owner that until he complies with 558, there’s nothing to discuss.  The definitions in 558 do not appear to limit the application of 558 to only those situations where there is privity between the owner and contractor.  Instead, 558 would indeed appear to govern this situation, notwithstanding the absence of privity.  Am I wrong?

<image002.jpg>

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