Blogs & Resources

By: Brittany N. Snell, Esq. and Austin B. Calhoun, Esq.
Many people routinely document their lives through interactions on social media forums such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or some other social media site. With social media becoming more and more a part of our everyday lives, the content of social media has inevitably become valuable to litigation. While you may be shaking your head and agreeing with the relevancy of social media, when is the last time you included a social media request in your discovery requests? If you included this request, how specific was it? This blog post will explore the growing use of discovery requests to obtain vital information from social media.

In Florida, unlicensed contracting is a crime. Florida Statutes provide special civil remedies for those harmed by unlicensed contracting. For instance, Section 768.0425 provides that a consumer harmed by an unlicensed contractor is entitled to treble damages and attorney’s fees. These are extreme remedies intended to punish unlicensed contractors. We typically think of a homeowner as the “consumer” in this context. However, a general contractor is likewise entitled to the civil remedies of §768.0425 if the contractor is harmed by its unlicensed subcontractor. Home Construction Management, LLC v. Comet, Inc., 125 So.3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Owner’s Partial Use of the Property Does Not Preclude Loss of Use Damages in Construction Defects Cases

By Austin B. Calhoun, Esq.

Under Florida law, a property owner may be entitled to “loss of use” damages if construction delay or defects deprive the owner of use of the property. Loss of use damages are measured by the reasonable rental value of the property. These rules raise some questions. For instance, can an owner claim “loss of use” for the period that owner refuses to inhabit the property while construction defects are being repaired? What if owner partially uses the property during such time? These questions were addressed in a recent Florida Third District Court of Appeals case: Gonzalez v. Barrenechea, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 647 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 21, 2015). This blog examines the Gonzalez case and the answers provided therein.

By Austin B Calhoun

Construction is a risky business. One risk is the danger to the public from activities of incompetent contractors. The Florida Legislature has addressed this risk. Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, regulates construction “contracting,” as defined in Section 489.105(6). To protect the public, a business organization that wishes to engage in contracting must be “licensed.” To be licensed, a business organization must have a “qualifying agent” in accordance with Chapter 489 concerning the scope of the work to be performed under the contract. Fla. Stat. 489.128(1)(a) (2014). This requirement raises questions: Who is a qualifying agent? How does a company register a qualifying agent in accordance with Chapter 489? When does a company need to register a qualifying agent? This blog answers these three questions and addresses the federal Lake Eola Builders case that tries to craft an exception to the strict rules of Chapter 489.

By Austin B Calhoun

Vendors are sometimes presented with customers going into bankruptcy. Vendors experienced in this dilemma are aware of preference actions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), whereby the trustee seeks to recover from the vendor all payments received from the debtor within the 90 day period prior to petition. There are various mechanisms and defenses a vendor can employ to block preference action recovery. One such tool is the critical vendor doctrine. This blog examines the steps a vendor must take to successfully implement the critical vendor doctrine in Florida bankruptcy courts.

By Austin B Calhoun

Do you know what your CGL insurance policy covers? General contractors may expect that their CGL policy covers the cost to repair defective work, or other components of the project that were damaged by defective work. This may be one of the primary reasons a contractor purchases CGL insurance. However, this coverage may not exist. It depends on the language of the policy and endorsements. Of particular importance is the “your work” exclusion and the “subcontractor exception,” which were the subject of a recent Florida case. In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13358 (11th Cir. July 11, 2014), the court denied coverage based on the “your work” exclusion. This blog looks first at the concept of “property damage” coverage and then examines how the holding of J.B.D. Construction impacts the breadth of property excluded from “property damage” coverage by the “your work” exclusion. Lastly, we examine how elimination of the “subcontractor exception” renders your insurance nearly useless in construction defect cases.

In Florida, design-build contracts do not need to identify a licensed architect . This rule was clarified in the recent case of first impression, Diaz & Russell Corporation, et al. v. Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8113, No. 3D13-1764 (Fla. 3d DCA May 28, 2014). An exception in Section 481.229(3), Florida Statutes, allows contractors to “negotiate” design-build contracts, so long as the negotiating contractor is neither offering to render, nor actually rendering, the architectural services of the project.

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.

Lenders and trade vendors often sagely require personal guarantees from the insiders of their debtor. In the event of debtor bankruptcy, a creditor may look to the insider-guarantor to satisfy the debt. The creditor’s ability to be made whole, then, is directly related to the financial position of the insider-guarantor. There is a problem: the Deprizio doctrine can erode the insider-guarantor’s financial position. Under the doctrine, the bankruptcy Trustee may disgorge assets from the guarantor that could otherwise satisfy the debt. Luckily, there is a solution to the Deprizio problem: a carefully crafted guaranty agreement that waives the guarantor’s claim against the bankruptcy debtor. This blog post explains the problem and clarifies the solution.

The affirmative defense of “First Cost” was formally recognized by a Florida court in the recent decision Sch. Bd. Of Broward County v. Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3916 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 19, 2014). The concept of first cost has been understood throughout the construction industry for quite a while, but had yet to be formally recognized by that name in Florida courts. See id. at *30. This blog examines the first cost defense and its application in the Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville case.