• Construction Law Updates
    • 2023 Florida Legislative Session
    • 2024 Florida Legislative Session
    • 2025 Florida Legislative Session
    • Subscribe
    • Let Us Help You Get Licensed
    • Georgia to Florida
    • Licensing Decisions
    • Podcast
    • Books
    • Forms
    • Index By Topic
    • Florida Contractor CEUs
    • Construction Law Presentations
    • Have Me Speak at Your Event
    • Contributors
  • Contact Jason
Menu

Hammer and Gavel

100 N Tampa Street Ste. 3500
Tampa, FL 33602
813-225-3020

Your Custom Text Here

Hammer and Gavel

  • Construction Law Updates
    • Construction Law Updates
    • 2023 Florida Legislative Session
    • 2024 Florida Legislative Session
    • 2025 Florida Legislative Session
    • Subscribe
  • Licensing in Florida
    • Let Us Help You Get Licensed
    • Georgia to Florida
    • Licensing Decisions
  • Contractor Resources
    • Podcast
    • Books
    • Forms
    • Index By Topic
    • Florida Contractor CEUs
    • Construction Law Presentations
    • Have Me Speak at Your Event
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Contact Jason
Untitled design (4).png

All Posts

Court Affirms Entry of Default Against Subcontractor But Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment Due to Issues as to Damages

July 27, 2024 Jason Lambert

The appeal arises from a dispute over a failed delivery of garage doors. After a default was entered against the subcontractor, it continued to oppose a motion for summary judgment filed by the general contractor, arguing that the default did not preclude it from contesting the amount of damages to which the general contractor was entitled.

Tormax USA, LLC v. Kennedy Contractors, Inc., arises from a payment dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor over garage doors. After the general contractor paid the subcontractor for the delivery of garage doors to a project, the subcontractor failed to perform. After the subcontractor refused to refund the money paid by the general contractor, the general contractor sued.

The subcontractor failed to respond to the complaint, and a default was entered. Eventually the subcontractor moved to set aside the default, and much motion practice and litigation ensued, including the filing of a summary judgment motion by the general contractor. Ultimately, the trial court denied the motion to set aside default and a motion for rehearing on that denial. The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of the general contractor, and the subcontractor appealed.

The entire appellate opinion states as follows:

Appellee [general contractor] filed a breach of contract action against Appellant [subcontractor] in the county court. A clerk's default was subsequently entered against [subcontractor] for failure to serve or file any document in the action. [Subcontractor] moved to set aside the default based on excusable neglect. The county court denied the motion, as well as [subcontractor’s] motion for reconsideration.

[General contractor] moved for summary judgment, which the county court granted. The court entered final summary judgment in favor of [general contractor] for the $16,782.20 [general contractor] claimed in damages, plus attorney's fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

As there was no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court's decision not to set aside the default. However, we reverse and remand for a trial on damages because there are issues of fact regarding damages awardable under the contract.

As you can imagine, most of the details in the opening paragraphs of this post were gleaned from the pleadings below. Critically, though, despite the default being entered, the subcontractor filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment arguing that even though liability was settled in favor of the general contractor due to the default, it was still entitled to be heard in opposition to the motion for summary judgment as to damages. This was sufficient for the appellate court to determine that there were issues of fact as to damages that needed to be resolved at trial.

The key takeaway for contractors is to be diligent in responding to lawsuits that are filed against them. The subcontractor in this case may have had legitimate defenses, but no longer has the ability to argue those, and instead is stuck trying to limit the damages and attorneys’ fees it may ultimately be required to pay. It’s also notable that the subcontractor filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Absent that, the result may also have been different.

In Lawsuit Mechanics Tags Construction Law Update
← Court Affirms Administrative Fines for Unlicensed Contracting Following Informal HearingCourt Affirms Denial of Request to Assert Failure to Provide Contractor's Payment Affidavit as a Defense →
jason-pic.jpeg

Jason Lambert is a Florida licensed attorney who focuses his practice on representing and advising contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers in the construction industry throughout the state of Florida. Before law school, Jason spent a decade working in the construction industry, primarily as a project manager and operations director for both new construction and remodeling. He also has experience in the wholesale and retail electrical, flooring, and countertop industries.


Most Recent Posts

Featured
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal of Pro Se Claims Against Cabinet Contractor, Allowing Punitive Damages Claims to Stand
Apr 30, 2025
Apr 30, 2025

The case, which arose out of the omission of soft-close features in a closet cabinet installation and a dispute over a $2,500 repair, resulted in a lawsuit seeking damages plus nearly $500,000 in punitive damages.

Read More →
Apr 30, 2025
Court Reverses Judgment in Favor of Contractor After Determining Contractor Was Unlicensed
Apr 22, 2025
Apr 22, 2025

The decision turned on the Third District Court of Appeal’s interpretation of 489.128, Florida Statutes, which makes contracts entered into by unlicensed contractors unenforceable.

Read More →
Apr 22, 2025
Court Refuses to Increase Lien Transfer Deposit Amount in Unconsolidated Cases
Mar 10, 2025
Mar 10, 2025

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently declined to reverse a trial court’s refusal to increase the amount a construction lien transfer deposit and the trial court’s related discharge of a lis pendens. The decision seems to rest, at least in part, on the fact that the lien foreclosure action and related breach of contract claims were progressing in two separate, unconsolidated cases.

Read More →
Mar 10, 2025

Contact Jason

Jason S. Lambert
Hill Ward Henderson
101 E. Kennedy Blvd Ste. 3700
Tampa, FL 33602
(727) 743-1037
jason.lambert@hwhlaw.com

 

Nothing on this website should be considered a solicitation for legal representation. Further, nothing on this website establishes an attorney-client relationship between us. Do not take action or fail to take action based on the information provided on this website. The statements and views expressed on this website are my own and do not reflect those of my law firm. Further, they are intended for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Finally, please pay attention to the dates on blog posts. Laws can and do change frequently, and blog posts may contain outdated information. You should confer with your own legal counsel regarding the application of any information on this website to your situation.

Main Blog | Sitemap