Jacksonville, Fla. – June 5, 2014 – Jimerson & Cobb, P.A., congratulates associate attorney, Hans C. Wahl, for his recent certification in Georgia after passing the February 2014 Georgia Bar. Wahl is now certified to practice law in the states of Florida and Georgia. “We are very proud of Hans,” […]
Insurance plays a key role with any business and its business relations with others. While parties may have good intentions as to their respective insurance obligations, they may fail to procure the requisite insurance coverage under the parties’ contract. When this happens, the results can be irreparable.
For those that missed the earlier parts of this Blog series, as of this post, the series has discussed: what is necessary to prove a delay occurred, combating the most common defenses, varying methods to calculate delay damages—Total Cost Method, Modified Total Cost Method and the Eichleay Formula for calculating overhead damages. Often, because of the delay, the work is performed in a higher wage period than initially planned; similarly, the cost of continuing to rent and possess idle equipment negatively affects the contractor. Part six of this series will discuss the potential recovery related to labor, material and equipment escalation costs directly associated with the delay.
In Florida, construction liens provide a valuable remedy to contractors. In order to be entitled to a construction lien, a contractor must strictly comply with the conditions precedent set forth in Sections 713.001 – 713.37, Florida Statutes. One such condition precedent is the commencement of an action to enforce the lien in a court of competent jurisdiction before the lien expires. See Section 713.22. This blog examines a particular nuance of this requirement – enforcing the lien when the contract contains an arbitration provision.
Featured in the May 2014 Issue Partner’s Perspective: How About a Walk in My Shoes? J&C Case Continues to Gain Attention of the Press New Law Blogs Curiosities, Ruminations and Various Eccentricities of Firm Biz Click to read.
On March 19, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an opinion of which all condominium association and HOA board members should be aware. That case, Sabal Palm Condominium of Pine Island Ridge Association, Inc. v. Fischer, involved a resident’s request to keep a service dog due to her disability. The court ultimately determined that the condo association violated federal law in its unsatisfactory response to that request. Specifically, the court held the condo association’s actions violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (“FHA”).
You have proven that a delay occurred, effectively addressed the common and most applicable defenses and sifted through a few available methods to calculate damages. While these other methods, the Total Cost Method and the Modified Total Cost Method, pertain mostly to the actual work done, they do not assist in recovering jobsite or general and administrative overhead. Luckily enough, the courts have been kind enough to create a formula to allow for calculating the monetary amount for home-office overhead that corresponds to the unplanned increase in resources as a result of a delay. This post will discuss what is known as the Eichleay Formula, which is used to approximate the amount of unabsorbed overhead that is a result of a particular delay.
Roofing systems are an integral part of any new construction. There are a number of things to consider when selecting a new roof system. Of course, cost and durability head the list, but aesthetics and architectural style are important, too. The right roof system for your home or building is one that balances these considerations. This is a three part blog that will discuss basic residential roofing considerations in Florida. Part I will discussed the basic components and types of roofs. This Part II will discuss the ventilation and “Enemies” of your roofing system. Part III will discuss considerations in selecting a roofing contractor.
This is the final edition in a series of Blog posts dedicated to explaining the process for the termination of condominiums according to the Florida Condominium Act. This series has provided an overview of the entire termination of condominium process from the reasons for seeking termination (part I; part II), to the written plan of termination (part III; part IV) and the persons involved in carrying out the plan (part V). Arguably, the most important part of the process is allocating the sale proceeds once the plan of termination has been completed. This Blog post will discuss that process and provide the statutory requirements for distributing assets and allocating proceeds.
This is Part VI in a series of Blog posts dedicated to explaining the process for the termination of condominiums according to the Florida Condominium Act. Previous posts in this series discussed terminating condominiums due to economic waste (part I); the optional termination process (part II); the written plan of termination (part III); executing the written plan of termination (part IV); and the termination trustee (part V). During the time a plan of termination is effective and the condominium is being terminated, the powers to carry out the process are mostly concentrated within the trustee and the association, as represented by the board of directors. However, there may be times when it is necessary to have a receiver appointed to execute the plan of termination and to conclude the affairs of the association. This Blog post will discuss the process for appointing a receiver and the duties of that receiver once appointed.