A Miami-Dade appellate court recently rejected a subcontractor’s attempts to back-charge a window contractor for damaged windows after the window contractor presented sufficient evidence that the windows were in good condition when they left the fabrication shop.
In Sol-A-Trol ALuminum Products v. General Impact Glass & Window Corp., a subcontractor was hired by a general contractor to provide and install windows as part of the construction of a school. The subcontractor then ordered the windows from a second company, which agreed to build and deliver the windows to the job site. The subcontractor made an initial payment to the window contractor, but after delivery of the windows, failed to make any further payments.
When the window contractor demanded payment 30 days after delivery, the subcontractor complained that the windows were leaking and asked to reduce the balance due by the cost of repairs. The window contractor asked to perform a water test on the windows to confirm why they were leaking. The subcontractor refused and also refused to make further payment.
Ultimately the window contractor sued and won following a non-jury trial. The subcontractor appealed, claiming that the trial court had ignored its claims of leaking windows and its entitlement to a reduction in the invoice.
At trial, the court relied on the testimony of the window contractor’s owner that the windows were not defective when the subcontractor picked them up from their facility. The trial court also relied on the fact that the subcontractor did not assert a claim for any defects until almost 50 days after delivery and installation, and only once the window contractor demanded payment. Based on these facts, the appellate court affirmed judgment in favor of the window contractor and determined this evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s rejection of the subcontractor’s request to reduce the amount due.
The appellate court also found sufficient evidence to support the window contractor’s claim that any delays in delivery or installation were the fault of the subcontractor. Specifically, the subcontractor required the window contractor to use its painter to coat the windows. This painter damaged multiple windows, which had to be rebuilt. This delay could not be attributed to the window contractor. Further, once the windows were done, the subcontractor asked not to have to pick up the windows until after the Christmas holidays, further delaying their delivery and installation.
Based on all of these facts, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the window contractor.
The key takeaway from this case should be that manufacturers, especially of custom items, should document the condition of their materials well before they leave the workshop or office. Once these items are delivered to the jobsite, they become the responsibility of the people there and any later-discovered damage or defects can become a “he said - she said.” By documenting the condition of the products being delivered, you can avoid that and make it easier to prevail in any subsequent dispute resolution proceeding.