Appellate court reverses judgment and finds that electrical contractor was properly licensed to perform excavation as part of its scope of work when installing underground electrical work. The reversal turn largely on the trial court’s improper application of Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, to electrical contractors, when they are governed by Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
D Electrician Technical Services Inc v. Tony arises out of a contractual dispute between an electrical contractor and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office (“BSO”) regarding work performed by the contractor at the BSO’s public safety building. In 2019, the contractor and BSO entered into an electrical services agreement, requiring the contractor to provide general electrical services at BSO’s request. The agreement also allowed the electrical contractor to submit bids for certain projects.
A short time later, BSO sought quotes from its pool of pre-approved electrical contractors, including the contractor in this case, for an underground conduit installation project that involved excavating trenches, installing FPL provided conduit, backfilling the trenches, installing temporary fencing, and participating in the groundbreaking ceremony. BSO accepted the contractor’s bid for the work.
The electrical contractor began work, and subcontracted the excavation to a backhoe company that was properly trained, but was not a licensed underground utility and excavation contractor. While the backhoe company was performing work, a live FPL transformer near a trench tilted over resulting in a loss of power to the building for 9 hours. Two days later, BSO terminated the agreement for convenience, but did not provide the 30 days notice required by the contract. At the time of termination the electrical contract claimed it was 69% complete.
The electrical contractor sued BSO for breach of the contract for failure to provide proper notice. Eventually, BSO amended its answer to allege that the agreement was unenforceable under 489.128, Florida Statutes, because the electrical contractor was not licensed to perform underground utility and excavation work. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment on the licensing issue and the trial court granted BSO’s motion finding that the electrical contractor needed to be an underground utility and excavation contractor to perform the work and did not have that license. In doing so, the trial court relied on the definition of underground excavation contractor found in § 489.105(3)(n), Florida Statutes.
On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling, finding that the trial court should have relied on Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, which governs electrical contractors, rather than the definition it relied on in Part I. When looking at this part, the appellate court noted that § 489.537(2)(a), Florida Statutes, expressly notes that the scope of electrical contracting expressly includes any excavation or paving work incidental thereto and that § 489.538, Florida Statutes, expressly provides that a licensee under Part II does not need a license under Part I to perform any of the work within the scope of its license. Moreover the Court noted that the definition of excavation contractor relied on by the trial court expressly prohibited such a contractor from installing conduit connected to an energized electrical system. Based on this, the Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.