The latest in a series of decisions by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals confirms an insurers duty to defend contractors against complaints of defective work and damages during construction. The three appeals, stretching from 2019 through 2024, provide a lot of insight into the importance of the allegations of the complaint, how coverage can be affected by them, and the breadth of the duty to defend even where coverage may be questionable.

The contractor amended its construction lien, which was then transferred to a bond and contested by the property owner after the start of litigation. When the contractor failed to add the bond’s surety to the lawsuit within 60 days, the property owner sought summary judgment and obtained an order finding the lien was extinguished based on the operation of two sections of Florida’s Construction Lien law.

The changes affects plan requirements for window, door, and garage door replacements; make changes to the sections governing private providers; impose new deadlines for permit application approvals and penalties for failing to meet them; and new standards for certain unvented spaces.

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the construction company’s president, finding that fact issues remained about whether the president ordered the company’s employee to place a tarp on a roof without also providing appropriate safety equipment.

The new statute would affect low voltage electric fence installations and limits municipalities from imposing requirements on low voltage alarm system projects that exceed those set forth in 553.793, Florida Statutes.

The statute modifies three sections of Florida’s Contractor Licensing Statute. First it expands the type of relief that can be awarded by local licensing boards and imposes requirements on their recommended penalties. It also increases the amount of funds the Homeowners’ Construction Industry Recovery Fund can award, starting January 2025. Finally, it adjusts the scope of electrical contractor specialty licensing as it relates to advertising signs.

The new statute modifies the definitions of work that can be performed by Class A and B HVAC contractors and Mechanical contractors in Florida to include additional electrical work. It also requires warranties on HVAC systems to be transferable and eliminates certain hurdles to transferability.

The new statute changes the requirements that an individual must meet to obtain a journeyman’s license for plumbing, pipefitting, mechanical or HVAC, electrical, and alarm systems trades, and makes reciprocity between counties a requirement.

The proposed statute modifies 489.147, Florida Statutes, which was enacted in 2021 and governs certain prohibited practices for roofing and other contractors operating on insurance-funded projects or in emergency areas. If the statute becomes law, homeowners would be able to cancel contracts without penalty within 10 days of signing under certain circumstances.

The statute moves the expiration of local licensing from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025, and requires the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to issue registered licenses to contractors that had certain local licenses from 2021 through 2023 in areas where those local licenses have been phased out.

The statute, if enacted, would require a builder of a newly constructed single family residence, duplex, triplex, quadruplex, or manufactured home to provide a one year warranty on all equipment, materials, or workmanship where a defect in those items results in a material violation of the Florida Building Code.

The proposed bills would more specifically define the work allowed to be done by commercial pool/spa contractors, more specifically define the limits imposed on residential pool/spa contractors, and also more clearly define the scope of work that servicers can perform.

If enacted, contractors licensed for less than five years, or contracting in emergency areas within 18 months following the emergency, or that had been disciplined within the last five years would be required to escrow any deposit of $10,000.00 or higher. Failure to do so would be a violation of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and be a felony.

The proposed statute modifies 489.147, Florida Statutes, which was enacted in 2021 and governs certain prohibited practices for roofing and other contractors operating on insurance-funded projects or in emergency areas. If enacted, homeowners would be able to cancel contracts without penalty within 10 days of signing under certain circumstances.

The proposed changes to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, are part of a larger bill impacting many professions governed by the DBPR.

The proposed law would apply to denials of licensing applications submitted through reciprocity or endorsement programs where the denial is based on a finding that the requirements for licensure in the original state are not substantially equivalent to the requirements of Florida or are otherwise insufficient for licensure in this state.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal partially reversed a dismissal with prejudice of all of a general contractor’s claims against a subcontractor, finding that the credit agreement between the parties did not preclude claims for breach of an implied in fact contract or negligence. The case is an important reminder that not only do the terms of contracts matter, but so do when they are signed, who signs them, and how they are referred to in pleadings.

The statute is being proposed in response to a phase out of certain contractor licenses issued by cities and counties, and would require the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to issue registered licenses to contractors that had certain local licenses from 2021 through 2023 in areas where those local licenses have been phased out.

Florida Senate Bill 908, if enacted, would modify 713.20, Florida Statutes, and require final and partial lien waivers in Florida to match the statutory form set forth in Florida’s Construction Lien law and would make any other types of forms unenforceable.

The final order imposed fines and continuing education against the electrical contractor, and possibly could have been avoided if the contractor had properly responded to the administrative complaint or properly preserved his rights to a final hearing. The case is a cautionary tale to contractors facing licensing complaints to take them seriously and comply with deadlines and instructions relating to the complaint.