The court affirmed judgment in favor of the subcontractor against a general contractor after a lawsuit arose over unpaid invoices for a liner installed as part of a golf course renovation. The case is a good reminder to all those in the construction industry of the time and expense of litigation, and the finality of judgments even in disputed cases.
Q.G.S. Development, Inc. v. National Lining Systems, Inc., arises from a dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor over unpaid invoices stemming from a 2015 golf course renovation project. In relevant part, a country club hired a general contractor to construct an irrigation lake at the golf course. As part of that work, the general contractor was to undertake dewatering of the project, and then hired the subcontractor to install a PVC liner on the bottom of the irrigation lake.
While there were concerns over the wet conditions at the property and the completeness of the dewatering efforts, the subcontractor ultimately installed the liner. While the general contractor had paid prior invoices submitted by the subcontractor, the general contractor did not pay the last invoice.
A few months later, the liner began to lift off the bottom of the lake. While the subcontractor was on its way to the site to evaluate the conditions, the general contractor cut into the liner in an attempt to ameliorate the lifting. While the subcontractor made repairs, further leaks were found, resulting in additional repairs being required. The subcontractor contended that these repairs were due to the actions of the general contractor in failing to properly dewater the project and in cutting the liner. The subcontractor submitted additional invoices for its repair work, which the general contractor refused to pay. The subcontractor then filed suit.
Following a non-jury trial, the court found in favor of the subcontractor. Specifically,
the court attributed the lining failure to [the general contractor’s] ineffective dewatering operations and improper installation of the sand ballast. The court further rejected the [general contractor’s] counterclaim outright, finding that, given untenable time constraints and other extraneous circumstances, [the subcontractor] performed within industry standards.
The general contractor appealed, asserting various errors relating to factual and evidentiary considerations. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of the subcontractor, holding that the findings of the trial court were supported by competent, substantial evidence, and therefore could not be reversed on appeal. While the court noted that other evidence in the record supported an outcome in favor of the trial court, the appellate court could not use that to reverse the trial court’s decision because there was also evidence supporting the ruling in favor of the subcontractor.
While this case doesn’t involve a lot of “construction law” per se, it is a helpful reminder to contractors that even if they have good facts and evidence to support their claims, the other side likely does as well. This is especially true if a case makes it all the way to a final trial. Truly one-sided cases many times can be resolved in advance of trial through summary procedures or settlement. And where a case has facts that support each side, the final ruling is more likely to stand on appeal, barring other issues with the trial court’s final ruling.
It also bears noting that the work at issue in this case started in 2015, and here we are in 2024 with the final judgment finally being affirmed by an appellate court. The parties have no doubt spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own cases, and now the general contractor will likely not only have to pay the subcontractor’s invoices, but also interest on the past due amounts, and possibly the subcontractor’s attorneys’ fees. This doesn’t even begin to address the intangible costs of lost productivity for all sides involved. Everyone in the construction industry should keep this prospect in mind when litigating a dispute.