I'm interested in others' thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) - with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be "unreasonable economic waste." --- BUT - what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn't damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn't they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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]

[cid:Facebook_55598884-7995-4d93-92d3-5101d580d70c.png]https://www.facebook.com/ClarkPartington/ [cid:LinkedIn_57c89113-2875-479d-9fdd-fd3a2a809f98.png] https://www.linkedin.com/company/2250553/admin/  [cid:Twitter_216c94ca-a91c-458c-ad76-295500e4747c.png] https://twitter.com/ClarkPartington  [cid:Instagram_c437b822-13ce-4d58-87bc-212014b134fa.png] https://www.instagram.com/clarkpartington/

So just continuing to wax philosophically on this, but from the other side, an owner has a duty to mitigate damages and, in the current environment where material and labor costs are increasing, shouldn’t the owner mitigate damages by making repairs as of the date the breach was found and not wait until trial, such that an award of current costs may reward the owner for not mitigating damages?

Lee A. Weintraub
Shareholder
Board Certified in Construction Law
Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group
Vice Chair, Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group
Becker & Poliakoff
1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
Ft. Lauderdale,
FL
33301
954.985.4147
954.985.4176
lweintraub@beckerlawyers.com
www.beckerlawyers.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Follow Becker on...
Confidentiality Note: This message, together with any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and permanently delete the original message, along with any attachments. Thank you.
​
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 1:06 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

EXTERNAL EMAIL - This message originated from an External Source.

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) – with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be “unreasonable economic waste.” --- BUT – what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn’t damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn’t they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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:image001.jpg@01D87C05.5D7E5230]

[cid:image002.png@01D87C05.5D7E5230]https://www.facebook.com/ClarkPartington/ [cid:image003.png@01D87C05.5D7E5230] https://www.linkedin.com/company/2250553/admin/  [cid:image004.png@01D87C05.5D7E5230] https://twitter.com/ClarkPartington  [cid:image005.png@01D87C05.5D7E5230] https://www.instagram.com/clarkpartington/

Perhaps – but the mitigation defense is always tempered with the limitation that extraordinary expense is not required. Mitigation can surely be a defense to a 553.84.

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]

[cid:Facebook_55598884-7995-4d93-92d3-5101d580d70c.png]https://www.facebook.com/ClarkPartington/ [cid:LinkedIn_57c89113-2875-479d-9fdd-fd3a2a809f98.png] https://www.linkedin.com/company/2250553/admin/  [cid:Twitter_216c94ca-a91c-458c-ad76-295500e4747c.png] https://twitter.com/ClarkPartington  [cid:Instagram_c437b822-13ce-4d58-87bc-212014b134fa.png] https://www.instagram.com/clarkpartington/

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 12:33 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

So just continuing to wax philosophically on this, but from the other side, an owner has a duty to mitigate damages and, in the current environment where material and labor costs are increasing, shouldn’t the owner mitigate damages by making repairs as of the date the breach was found and not wait until trial, such that an award of current costs may reward the owner for not mitigating damages?

Lee​

A.

Weintraub

Shareholder
Board Certified in Construction Law
Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group
Vice Chair, Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group

[www.beckerlawyers.com]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/74ed70e8/mugqq9rHIk210jQ-B-OC1g?u=http://www.beckerlawyers.com/

Becker & Poliakoff

1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800

Ft. Lauderdale,

FL

33301

[cid:image007.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

954.985.4147tel:954.985.4147

[cid:image008.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

954.985.4176fax:954.985.4176

[cid:image009.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

lweintraub@beckerlawyers.commailto:lweintraub@beckerlawyers.com

[cid:image010.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

https://link.edgepilot.com/s/74ed70e8/mugqq9rHIk210jQ-B-OC1g?u=http://www.beckerlawyers.com/

[cid:image011.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

Connect with me on LinkedIn
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/f64a0179/ZOkicsQHnkOiLCgyuz4hGw?u=http://www.linkedin.com/pub/lee-weintraub/1b/a0b/813

[cid:image012.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

Follow me onhttps://link.edgepilot.com/s/0a2e3c01/46-bst62Hk6xWrW3nnlB1w?u=http://twitter.com/leeweintraub Twitter
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/0a2e3c01/46-bst62Hk6xWrW3nnlB1w?u=http://twitter.com/leeweintraub

[cid:image013.jpg@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

Follow Becker on...

[Facebook]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/b977c4b2/WsOf2z0oI0W1RZpCCsdQug?u=http://www.facebook.com/beckerpoliakoff

[LinkedIn]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/fe7424f0/I5esgquIHUqqPcBcLsAe7w?u=http://www.linkedin.com/company/becker-%26-poliakoff-p.a

[Twitter]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a112c207/n291qdemYkS_auGmYVKDZw?u=http://twitter.com/BeckerPoliakoff

[YouTube]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/d9f0493d/O3r4x-qTj0y0Oxmga9ctuA?u=https://www.youtube.com/user/bplawfirm

Confidentiality Note: This message, together with any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and permanently delete the original message, along with any attachments. Thank you.
​

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, June 9, 2022 1:06 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

EXTERNAL EMAIL - This message originated from an External Source.

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) – with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be “unreasonable economic waste.” --- BUT – what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn’t damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn’t they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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://link.edgepilot.com/s/7819392a/54YP25uxxkCXuSwR5DVehQ?u=https://clarkpartington.com/

[cid:image018.jpg@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]

[cid:image019.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/63c54236/sIX2EYIPWUKO4XMXYfCf9A?u=https://www.facebook.com/ClarkPartington/ [cid:image020.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0] https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c5047c41/MjqnH_-_M06ZVF37uOW_eQ?u=https://www.linkedin.com/company/2250553/admin/  [cid:image021.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0] https://link.edgepilot.com/s/3a816eb7/KdFBJDdkWkOV89H2WpYLDw?u=https://twitter.com/ClarkPartington  [cid:image022.png@01D87BFF.1F2958F0] https://link.edgepilot.com/s/49ca4fc4/G5U8pp6dR0CB2qWAS16jeA?u=https://www.instagram.com/clarkpartington/

Because the Economic Waste doctrine is judicially created. It should apply, absence a state statute to the contrary. While the question you have impliedly posed calls reason/logic into question, a possible legislative fix has no such burden.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 1:06 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I'm interested in others' thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) - with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be "unreasonable economic waste." --- BUT - what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn't damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn't they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclarkpartington.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CSimEY2J060nwaiKVbxQX7VgSNydAWm5gFt05r5Gqf8%3D&reserved=0

[cid:image001.jpg@01D87C0A.2E4E7300]

[cid:image002.png@01D87C0A.2E4E7300]https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FClarkPartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wDgjfnaF1rUEiUX9M5S6BrDaLV7enZSKt7CTxpmAdCo%3D&reserved=0 [cid:image003.png@01D87C0A.2E4E7300] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2F2250553%2Fadmin%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LPg6kfZ4bpT2neNxABO3jDsOGC8bJ74VHUNU%2FtB6yEk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:image004.png@01D87C0A.2E4E7300] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FClarkPartington&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eYNo2yY4wBmbXhzJzirzNGcbGHd%2Fpo2bOjfLpPsdmBk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:image005.png@01D87C0A.2E4E7300] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fclarkpartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j5CO1Whu4BRBdSbxDUy7bHDnUfEYdYpzTw9T9hq08h4%3D&reserved=0

Where does it state that violations of the FBC are required to be fixed?

Edward Kuchinski
Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813-229-4262 | Fax: 813.229.4133
EKuchinski@carltonfields.com

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 2:29 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I think it's important to give weight to the part of the hypothetical involving the Florida Building Code's provisions having "the force of law."  Because violations of the FBC are required to be fixed, then the applicable measure of damages must be whatever the current cost of correction is.

In that specific scenario, a diminution of value measure of damages simply would not be a reasonable application of the law, or an effective/meaningful remedy, in my opinion.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:15 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
Because the Economic Waste doctrine is judicially created. It should apply, absence a state statute to the contrary. While the question you have impliedly posed calls reason/logic into question, a possible legislative fix has no such burden.

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, June 9, 2022 1:06 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) – with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be “unreasonable economic waste.” --- BUT – what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn’t damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn’t they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclarkpartington.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CSimEY2J060nwaiKVbxQX7VgSNydAWm5gFt05r5Gqf8%3D&reserved=0

[cid:image001.jpg@01D87C0E.432FEBB0]

[cid:image002.png@01D87C0E.432FEBB0]https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FClarkPartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wDgjfnaF1rUEiUX9M5S6BrDaLV7enZSKt7CTxpmAdCo%3D&reserved=0 [cid:image003.png@01D87C0E.432FEBB0] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2F2250553%2Fadmin%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LPg6kfZ4bpT2neNxABO3jDsOGC8bJ74VHUNU%2FtB6yEk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:image004.png@01D87C0E.432FEBB0] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FClarkPartington&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eYNo2yY4wBmbXhzJzirzNGcbGHd%2Fpo2bOjfLpPsdmBk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:image005.png@01D87C0E.432FEBB0] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fclarkpartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j5CO1Whu4BRBdSbxDUy7bHDnUfEYdYpzTw9T9hq08h4%3D&reserved=0

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

--
[cid:image006.png@01D87C0E.432FEBB0]

Some additional facts that pertain here:

1.   Client’s insurance has been cancelled because of the ongoing issues and they had to re-place the insurance at a pretty exorbitant premium; and
   

2.   Homeowners association is demanding that the issues be fixed.
   

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]

[cid:Facebook_55598884-7995-4d93-92d3-5101d580d70c.png]https://www.facebook.com/ClarkPartington/ [cid:LinkedIn_57c89113-2875-479d-9fdd-fd3a2a809f98.png] https://www.linkedin.com/company/2250553/admin/  [cid:Twitter_216c94ca-a91c-458c-ad76-295500e4747c.png] https://twitter.com/ClarkPartington  [cid:Instagram_c437b822-13ce-4d58-87bc-212014b134fa.png] https://www.instagram.com/clarkpartington/

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 1:49 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

If there is no express statement of the law requiring FBC violations to be fixed, then there are plenty of real world scenarios where the situation comes into play -- passing final inspection comes to mind immediately.

Then there's the reality of current contractors/subs finding a condition that violates the FBC and refusing to perform any work until or unless the condition is corrected.

Also, if an owner is aware of any FBC violations affecting a residential structure, then I would argue Johnson v. Davis requires disclosure of same in connection with any sale of the property, thereby creating a situation where the violation would almost certainly have to be corrected prior to closing.

I'm sure there are other good examples of when correction would be required, if not by law then by real world application, but those were just the first few off the top of my head.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:42 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
Where does it state that violations of the FBC are required to be fixed?

Edward Kuchinski
Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813-229-4262 | Fax: 813.229.4133
EKuchinski@carltonfields.commailto:EKuchinski@carltonfields.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, June 9, 2022 2:29 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I think it's important to give weight to the part of the hypothetical involving the Florida Building Code's provisions having "the force of law."  Because violations of the FBC are required to be fixed, then the applicable measure of damages must be whatever the current cost of correction is.

In that specific scenario, a diminution of value measure of damages simply would not be a reasonable application of the law, or an effective/meaningful remedy, in my opinion.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:15 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
Because the Economic Waste doctrine is judicially created. It should apply, absence a state statute to the contrary. While the question you have impliedly posed calls reason/logic into question, a possible legislative fix has no such burden.

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, June 9, 2022 1:06 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) – with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be “unreasonable economic waste.” --- BUT – what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn’t damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn’t they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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://link.edgepilot.com/s/9fb3de87/R1DVaADJAkaqF4R1iFL9pw?u=https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%253A%252F%252Fclarkpartington.com%252F%26data=05%257C01%257Cdudley%2540mylicenselaw.com%257C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%257C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%257C0%257C0%257C637903920169210180%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata=CSimEY2J060nwaiKVbxQX7VgSNydAWm5gFt05r5Gqf8%253D%26reserved=0

[cid:image001.jpg@01D87C09.4720C730]

[cid:image002.png@01D87C09.4720C730]https://link.edgepilot.com/s/3e8eea0c/CSguFG9X3ESGKBbS1fRlfw?u=https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.facebook.com%252FClarkPartington%252F%26data=05%257C01%257Cdudley%2540mylicenselaw.com%257C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%257C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%257C0%257C0%257C637903920169210180%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata=wDgjfnaF1rUEiUX9M5S6BrDaLV7enZSKt7CTxpmAdCo%253D%26reserved=0 [cid:image003.png@01D87C09.4720C730] https://link.edgepilot.com/s/ef2e2e50/f7UowQ7vgUqhilT1LHAjFg?u=https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.linkedin.com%252Fcompany%252F2250553%252Fadmin%252F%26data=05%257C01%257Cdudley%2540mylicenselaw.com%257C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%257C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%257C0%257C0%257C637903920169210180%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata=LPg6kfZ4bpT2neNxABO3jDsOGC8bJ74VHUNU%252FtB6yEk%253D%26reserved=0  [cid:image004.png@01D87C09.4720C730] https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c616a28a/NeZa5legM0anZDl3iPRjFg?u=https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%253A%252F%252Ftwitter.com%252FClarkPartington%26data=05%257C01%257Cdudley%2540mylicenselaw.com%257C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%257C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%257C0%257C0%257C637903920169210180%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata=eYNo2yY4wBmbXhzJzirzNGcbGHd%252Fpo2bOjfLpPsdmBk%253D%26reserved=0  [cid:image005.png@01D87C09.4720C730] https://link.edgepilot.com/s/552fde55/Cjkt6hR1WUGosLK2j6oCqg?u=https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.instagram.com%252Fclarkpartington%252F%26data=05%257C01%257Cdudley%2540mylicenselaw.com%257C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%257C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%257C0%257C0%257C637903920169210180%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata=j5CO1Whu4BRBdSbxDUy7bHDnUfEYdYpzTw9T9hq08h4%253D%26reserved=0

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/aeb6ac23/O2rHkUjrSEyXbAt21Bmnww?u=http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

--
[cid:image006.png@01D87C09.4720C730]

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/aeb6ac23/O2rHkUjrSEyXbAt21Bmnww?u=http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

--
[cid:image006.png@01D87C09.4720C730]

I would say the definition of “unreasonable” cannot exclude the costs of correction of building code violations; any such correction must be reasonable.  The diminution of value analysis only applies, “where the corrections involve an unreasonable destruction of the structure and a cost which is grossly disproportionate to the results obtained.”  Broward County v. CH2M Hill, 302 So.3d 895, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), quoting Kritikos v. Andersen, 125 So.3d 885, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), quoting Temple Beth Sholom & Jewish Center, Inc. v. Thyne Construction Corp., 399 So.2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Broward County also affirmed the damages based upon, “actual costs to remediate, redesign, and reconstruct,” reduced by costs for upgrades and improvements.  302 So.3d at 904.  The Court directed the trial court to consider “certain deductions” on remand, including the percentage of useful life the County had received, but did not address time of breach versus time of repairs.

All of which tells me that correcting building code violations can never be measured by diminution in value due to unreasonable costs.

So your question then turns to using current estimates, as opposed to actual expenditures, to correct building code violations.  Suppose your project was completed (with building code defects) in 2015, suit was filed in 2018, and you’re just now gathering estimates from experts.  Should they be forced to price the repairs using 2015 prices (with prejudgment interest to account for inflation) or 2022 prices, since the work has not been done yet?  I don’t know of any cases that solve that issue. Either way, your estimates are subject to Daubert attacks. I would imagine the more predictable and repeatable opinion would have to use 2022 prices, since 2015 would be much more speculative and inherently just guestimates.  The way around the 2015 argument would be to posit that the “breach” is measured by the 2015 Code – but since actual repairs cannot be accurately priced based on 2015 costs, the damages have to be in current value numbers.

But I’d sure ask my experts to testify about 2015 damages too!

b.

Brian F. Stayton
Stayton Law Group, P.A.
3619 Lithia Pinecrest Road
Valrico Florida 33596
Telephone: (813) 662-9829
Facsimile: (813) 662-9830
Brian@StaytonLawGroup.com
Board Certified in Construction Law

[signature_3078872692]
NOTICE:  This e-mail was sent by an attorney, is highly confidential, and may be privileged as a matter of law. This message is intended only for the use of persons named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this message, including its dissemination, distribution, copying, or printing, is strictly prohibited. This e-mail and any attached documents contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, as well as Federal and State copyright laws. If you receive this message in error, please reply and inform me of that mistake. In addition, permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of RPPTL CLC-Discussion clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 2:39 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages
I think it's important to give weight to the part of the hypothetical involving the Florida Building Code's provisions having "the force of law."  Because violations of the FBC are required to be fixed, then the applicable measure of damages must be whatever the current cost of correction is.

In that specific scenario, a diminution of value measure of damages simply would not be a reasonable application of the law, or an effective/meaningful remedy, in my opinion.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:15 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
Because the Economic Waste doctrine is judicially created. It should apply, absence a state statute to the contrary. While the question you have impliedly posed calls reason/logic into question, a possible legislative fix has no such burden.

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, June 9, 2022 1:06 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) – with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be “unreasonable economic waste.” --- BUT – what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn’t damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn’t they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclarkpartington.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CSimEY2J060nwaiKVbxQX7VgSNydAWm5gFt05r5Gqf8%3D&reserved=0

[cid:18149b539bb4ce8e91]

[cid:18149b539bb5b16b22]https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FClarkPartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wDgjfnaF1rUEiUX9M5S6BrDaLV7enZSKt7CTxpmAdCo%3D&reserved=0 [cid:18149b539bb692e333] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2F2250553%2Fadmin%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LPg6kfZ4bpT2neNxABO3jDsOGC8bJ74VHUNU%2FtB6yEk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:18149b539bb7745b44] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FClarkPartington&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eYNo2yY4wBmbXhzJzirzNGcbGHd%2Fpo2bOjfLpPsdmBk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:18149b539bb855d355] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fclarkpartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j5CO1Whu4BRBdSbxDUy7bHDnUfEYdYpzTw9T9hq08h4%3D&reserved=0

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

--
[cid:ii_jlzjcxio0_165cf3fdd85fcab4]

The building code violation has to be “material” as defined by the code.

Beth-Ann Schulman
Florida Bar Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Shareholder
Boyd & Jenerette, P.A.
800 North Magnolia Ave., Suite 430
Orlando, FL 32803

Office: (407) 309-4760
Direct: (407) 309-4755
Cell:  (407) 701-3033
www.boydjen.comhttp://www.boydjen.com/
Download vCardhttp://www.boydjen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Beth-Ann-Schulman-2.vcf

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 2:36 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

Where does it state that violations of the FBC are required to be fixed?

Edward Kuchinski
Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813-229-4262 | Fax: 813.229.4133
EKuchinski@carltonfields.commailto:EKuchinski@carltonfields.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, June 9, 2022 2:29 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I think it's important to give weight to the part of the hypothetical involving the Florida Building Code's provisions having "the force of law."  Because violations of the FBC are required to be fixed, then the applicable measure of damages must be whatever the current cost of correction is.

In that specific scenario, a diminution of value measure of damages simply would not be a reasonable application of the law, or an effective/meaningful remedy, in my opinion.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:15 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:
Because the Economic Waste doctrine is judicially created. It should apply, absence a state statute to the contrary. While the question you have impliedly posed calls reason/logic into question, a possible legislative fix has no such burden.

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, June 9, 2022 1:06 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 553.84 damages

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this.

We know two things about breach of contract damages under Grossman Holdings: (1) that they are to be measured as of the time of the breach (Jeremy Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)) – with interest accruing since that time; and (2) that they are limited to diminution in value if the cost to correct would be “unreasonable economic waste.” --- BUT – what about damages under 553.84? Since the building code has the force of law, and is for the purposes of life safety, etc., wouldn’t damages for a 553.84 claim have neither of those constraints? I.e. wouldn’t they, for public policy reasons, be measured by the current cost to correct and not be limited by the economic waste constraint because the law requires their correction?

I can find zero cases or other authorities that even touch this point.

Thoughts from this august group?  Am I Don Quixote here?

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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclarkpartington.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CSimEY2J060nwaiKVbxQX7VgSNydAWm5gFt05r5Gqf8%3D&reserved=0

[cid:image001.jpg@01D87C13.48D2B160]

[cid:image002.png@01D87C13.48D2B160]https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FClarkPartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wDgjfnaF1rUEiUX9M5S6BrDaLV7enZSKt7CTxpmAdCo%3D&reserved=0 [cid:image003.png@01D87C13.48D2B160] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2F2250553%2Fadmin%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LPg6kfZ4bpT2neNxABO3jDsOGC8bJ74VHUNU%2FtB6yEk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:image004.png@01D87C13.48D2B160] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FClarkPartington&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eYNo2yY4wBmbXhzJzirzNGcbGHd%2Fpo2bOjfLpPsdmBk%3D&reserved=0  [cid:image005.png@01D87C13.48D2B160] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fclarkpartington%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdudley%40mylicenselaw.com%7C58d2256b54754f9f459f08da4a3c505a%7C73ebfaa37dec49cabcc3dfba720c63d9%7C0%7C0%7C637903920169210180%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j5CO1Whu4BRBdSbxDUy7bHDnUfEYdYpzTw9T9hq08h4%3D&reserved=0

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

--
[cid:image006.png@01D87C13.48D2B160]

Important -Due to the recent restrictions arising as a result of COVID-19 (Coronavirus), we respectfully request that you send any documentation/correspondence electronically instead of via postal mail or fax, if you are able.

Boyd & Jenerette utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a timely response to an email communication, please contact the intended recipient via phone.

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 the 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.