Earlier this year Florida’s House and Senate introduced two proposed bills that would have impacted contractor licensing and construction defect dispute resolution. While both bills died in committee, it is important to recognize that Florida’s legislature is contemplating these issues and to be on the lookout for future, proposed revisions. A brief discussion of both proposed bills is below.
House Bill 3 / Senate Bill 1748 would have modified local government’s ability to regulate and license construction activities. First, the proposed statute reserved to the state government (as opposed to the city or county government) the ability to regulate various professions, including construction licensing. Second, the proposed statute automatically eliminated most local licensing requirements or regulation as of July 2021, absent compliance with various statutory requirements. Finally, the proposed statute would have modified Chapter 489 to expressly prohibit a local government from requiring a local license for certain licenses already governed by Chapter 489 and for the following work: painting, flooring, cabinetry, interior remodeling, driveway or tennis court installation, decorative stone, tile, marble, granite, terrazzo installation, plastering, and stucco.
While I’m not sure why this statute did not advance out of committee, I do think it blurred the lines too much between categories of work that may require a license and work that should not. Hopefully any future proposed legislation will create a clear line between categories of work that implicate life safety or building code concerns and those that do not.
House Bill 911 / Senate Bill 1246 would have modified Chapter 558’s pre-suit construction defect dispute resolution process. The current (and remaining) version of the statute calls for pre-suit notice, inspection, an opportunity to cure, and the ability to propose a settlement. The notice must occur at least 60 days before a lawsuit can be filed. The proposed statute would have eliminated nearly all of that and required that in any action involving construction defects, the court require the parties to participate in non-binding arbitration within 180 days of the filing of the lawsuit. The parties could then accept or reject some or all of the arbitrators findings and proceed to trial on the balance of the issues.
Again, I am unsure why this statute did not advance out of committee, but I am not sure if it solved the problems created by the current version of Chapter 558. The chief complaint with the current version of Chapter 558 is that the parties are required to expend a lot of time and money on inspections and experts before a lawsuit is ever filed and while neither party may be willing to compromise. Involving a third-party neutral is helpful, but it would be even more helpful if the statute included some sort of penalty for rejecting the reasonable findings or conclusions of an arbitrator, only to reach a similar result at trial 2 years later. That would force parties to take the resolution process seriously and to evaluate settlement options seriously upfront.
While neither of these proposed statutory revisions passed, its clear that Florida’s legislature is looking at ways to alter regulation of the construction industry. Stay aware of these proposed changes and don’t be afraid to contact your local representatives to let you opinions be known.