Part II: Contractor Defenses to Negligence Claims Part I of this posting discussed various considerations with proving contractor negligence in Florida. Part II of this posting will discuss defenses and hurdles in proving such negligence. Just as the Plaintiff has the burden of proof on its negligence claim, the […]
It is well known that Offers of Judgment and Florida Courts’ interpretations of the Statute and Rule governing them are continually changing. Certainly Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and Florida Statute § 768.79 provide the requirements for the form, language, method and timing of service of an Offer of […]
Part I: Elements and Duty Construction defects are a problem in Florida. In an environment that is hot, humid, and stormy, defective construction is magnified often causing damaging water leaks, harmful mold intrusion and amongst other things, a serious disruption to our everyday lives. Typical sources of water intrusion are […]
As the cost of litigation continues to rise, especially the costs associated with retained experts, it becomes more and more imperative to use all means available to limit the costs attributable to your clients whenever possible. If you have been involved in litigation for any length of time, either representing defendants or plaintiffs, it is likely you have had opposing counsel point to the ever increasing costs of the experts you will be required to retain throughout the litigation. It is more likely still that opposing counsel has threatened to require reports from each expert and depose the experts, continuing to increase the costs of litigation that you or your client will be forced to cover. Many times these tactics are used to force early settlement by clients or firms that are unable front the costs associated with retained experts in litigation. When you are confronted with these situations, you and your clients will be well served by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280 and 1.390.
Occasionally in our firm’s representation of construction companies, materials suppliers, services contractors and sureties, we will find ourselves embroiled in a local, state, or federal contracting dispute. These disputes are nuanced and procedurally driven, requiring knowledge of administrative and contract laws that at times overlap. Whether it is in the bid process, bid protests, post-contract compliance and administration, pricing adjustments or government contracting disputes, we have the experience to represent clients in a myriad of government contracting issues. In doing so, we are required to have an operational knowledge of how the following (among many others) key sources of federal contract law apply to our construction clientele who bid on and obtain contracts for federal projects:
When purchasing a home or renovating an existing inhabitance, property owners should be aware of certain basic issues that can cause legal problems under Florida law. This post is designed to address some issues that may arise in the process and provide basic guidance on what consumers need to be aware of.
Contract reformation is an equitable remedy that acts to correct an error not in the parties’ agreement but in the writing that constitutes the embodiment of that agreement. It is designed to correct a defective or erroneous instrument so that it reflects the true terms of the agreement that the parties actually reached and, at its essence, acts to correct an error not in the parties’ agreement but in the writing that constitutes the embodiment of that agreement. The doctrine has evolved such that if a document is to be reformed, it should reflect the true intention of the parties. Florida courts employ this equitable measure in order to preserve the sanctity of the contracting parties’ negotiations and the spirit of the deal.
The 2010 edition of the Florida Building Code took effect March 15, 2012. Generally, the most significant changes were to wind load design and construction. Recent studies have confirmed what everyone in the state suspected: South Florida gets more hurricanes. Specifically, the most changes were those dealing with wind design […]
By Austin Calhoun, J.D. 2013
In a construction delay claim, the contractor has the burden to prove that the offending party’s actions affected activities on the critical path of the contractor’s performance of the contract. George Sollitt Const. Co. v. U.S., 64 Fed.Cl. 229 (Fed.Cl. 2005). To meet this burden, a contractor must initially establish the as-planned critical path. Moreover, the critical path needs to be diligently updated to adapt to the evolution of the construction project as it is actually built. Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules are the most often used and preferred way to create and document the critical path. See Id.
Expert discovery has just been served by opposing counsel and your retained expert provides you with a copy of his file, including all documents he has reviewed in the matter, as requested. Your heart skips a beat as you discover several privileged documents have been provided to your expert throughout […]