Blogs & Resources

Service of process is likely an issue about which many attorneys and parties don’t give much thought; it’s a standard procedure conducted hundreds if not thousands of times a day across the country, and is usually done through a professional process server. However, when attorneys deviate from the standard procedure of sending a lawsuit to a process server and allowing them to effectuate service, whether due to cost or strategic considerations, it is easy to run afoul of the Florida and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Florida law, individual design professionals can be held liable for professional negligence, even if they did not personally contract for the professional services. Moransais v. Heathman. Moreover, Florida’s statutes governing engineering, architecture and geology make clear that individual design professionals are not automatically absolved of liability simply because they are not parties to a contract.

There are many options for a contractor to deliver a project to a commercial owner. As with each different project, the delivery method can change to suit the needs of the parties. Careful attention should be taken when analyzing which method works for the particular project. Each of these various project delivery methods carry differing risks for the parties involved (i.e. owner, contractor, subcontractors, etc.). This two-part blog discusses some of most common project delivery methods for commercial construction projects. Part I discussed Design Build methods and Construction Manager at Risk. This part II will address some trending project delivery methods.

Performance bonds on a construction project can be a valuable asset. However, the language of the bond may be filled with traps for the unwary. A bond obligee must be careful to strictly comply with the bond language, or else the bond protection may be lost—which can be a very bad thing. A recent case, Arch Ins. Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 15-22403-CIV, 2016 WL 7324144 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2016), highlights how a bond obligee can lose its bond protection by failing to strictly comply with the bond language… and it cost the bond obligee One Million Dollars. Failure to understand and strictly comply with the bond language can be costly.

There are many options for a Contractor to deliver a project to a commercial owner. As with each different project, the deliver method can change to suit the needs of the parties. Careful attention should be taken when analyzing which method works for the particular project. Each of these various project delivery methods carry differing risks for the parties involved (i.e. owner, contractor, subcontractors, etc.). This two-part blog will discuss some of the most common project delivery methods for commercial construction projects. Part I will discuss Design Build methods and Construction Manager at Risk.

Florida construction lien law allows certain parties who perform construction work to record construction liens if they are not paid. A construction lien is proper when a lienor has not been paid for labor, services, materials or other items furnished in connection with a construction project. Sometimes, however, when a construction lien is recorded, an owner or contractor, subcontractor or sub-subcontractor may argue the construction lien is fraudulent. A party that records a fraudulent lien can be subject to punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and felony charges.

When a party breaches a contract and the contract does not contain a valid liquidated damages clause, the non-breaching party may be entitled to compensatory damages. The appropriate measure of damages arising from a breach of an enforceable contract is usually “the difference between the value expected from the contract and the value actually received by the non-breaching party.” Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. Technip USA Corp., 2008 WL 3876141, at *5 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008). Actual damages flowing from the breach of contract are either “direct” or “consequential.” Direct damages are those that flow naturally and necessarily from the breach and compensate for loss that is presumed to have been foreseen or contemplated by the parties because of the breach. Id. Examples of direct damages include unpaid contract amounts, cost to repair defective work, and reduced project value due to nonconforming work. Consequential damages are damages that “do not necessarily, but do directly, naturally, and proximately result from” the injury for which compensation is sought.

Ownership of waterfront property is very desirable in Florida and often involves unique real property considerations. But when we discuss waterfront property in Florida, one of the most attractive and most sought-out features is an incredible water view. When it comes to private waterfront property ownership, it can be difficult to distinguish where the private land rights cease and the sovereign land ownership begins. More difficult is when your neighbor begins construction or activity that actually blocks your waterfront view. As a result, a subset of real property law has emerged to address what is called “riparian rights.”

So-called “letters of intent” are used quite often in a wide array of business contexts. Even though they are used frequently, however, much of the time the parties signing the letter do not understand the legal effect of the letter. Parties often don’t understand if the letter of intent is legally enforceable. Can a party sue on the letter of intent alone if the other party fails to consummate the deal or hold up their end of the bargain? The answer to that question under Florida law is: maybe. This blog provides guidance on the main issues affecting enforceability of a letter of intent.

A recent federal appellate decision examined an issue regarding private construction projects on public land in District of Columbia v. Department of Labor, 819 F.3d 444 (D.C. Cir. 2016). In this particular case, the district court and the appellate court involved refused to extend the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to the project in question. With the 2016 presidential election about a month away, this recent decision is important in the context of the construction industry because the administration that wins the election—depending on their labor stance—may push for more or less application of the DBA through the Department of Labor, an executive branch agency. Moreover, given the decision of the court, legislators running for election or reelection to Congress may have labor stances that should be examined by those interested in this issue and decision. This blog examines the opinion of the court and its reasoning in reaching its decision in this case and also comments on why this case is of importance to the construction industry.