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.

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.

Florida’s Third DCA reversed a trial court’s ruling that a property owner could seek punitive damages from a roadway contractor that improperly used the owner’s property as a staging area for construction. While the trial court found that the contractor had acted intentionally, the appellate court noted that to pursue punitive damages against a corporate entity, additional evidence of corporate involvement needed to be presented and was not.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s denial of a general contractor’s motion for attorneys’ fees filed against a stucco subcontractor, finding that the apportionment of damages in primary claims between the property owner and general contractor should have no bearing on the prevailing party status of the general contractor on third-party claims against subcontractors.

11th Circuit court of appeal reverses dismissal with prejudice of breach of contract and copyright claims asserted by architect, finding that factual issues surrounding the basis for termination preclude disposition of the claims on a motion to dismiss. The court found this to be the case despite the existence of a termination for convenience provision in the contract.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reinstated a contractor’s construction lien after finding that alleged unlicensed contracting in violation of local ordinances did not trigger the application of 489.128, Florida Statute. The court does a good job of outlining the differences between state and local licensing laws and the penalties and scope of enforcement available at the state and local level.

11th Circuit affirms delay damages award to subcontractor despite the existence of a “no-damages-for-delay” provision in the subcontractor agreement, finding that general contractor was aware of conditions causing delays and potential solutions, but did not enact those solutions. The opinion provides a thorough analysis of the types of damages awardable under these provisions and the causal link necessary to prove delay damages.

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.

In affirming the imposition of fines for unlicensed contracting, the Court held that a formal administrative hearing is necessary only where the material facts are in dispute.

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.

The request came five and a half years into litigation and the denial resulted in summary judgment in favor of a shell contractor attempting to foreclose a $220,000.00 lien.

The decision confirms that where a surety enters into a settlement payment with a project owner, the contractor is entitled to setoff that payment against a subsequent judgment obtained against a contractor for the same damages.

In a short opinion, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment foreclosing a lien in favor of a general contractor. While the opinion is short and without elaboration, reviewing the underlying trial docket raises questions about the acceptable forms for contractor’s payment affidavits and pleading affirmative defenses relating to lien claims.

Since 2019, roofing contractors in Florida have been subject to a litany of new regulations, including restrictions on advertising methods and certain disclosure requirements in their contracts. On May 2, 2024, Governor DeSantis signed HB 939, which becomes law on July 1, 2024. The new statute imposes new disclosure requirements on roofing contractors and gives homeowners new contract cancellation rights. Roofing contractors in Florida need to evaluate their contracts and contact their attorneys to ensure they comply with the new requirements.

The decision issued by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal found that where a property owner alleged in its complaint that the lien should be discharged due to the contractor’s failure to serve a notice to owner, 713.21(4) did not apply.

The latest in a series of decisions by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals confirms an insurers duty to defend contractors against complaints of defective work and damages during construction. The three appeals, stretching from 2019 through 2024, provide a lot of insight into the importance of the allegations of the complaint, how coverage can be affected by them, and the breadth of the duty to defend even where coverage may be questionable.

The contractor amended its construction lien, which was then transferred to a bond and contested by the property owner after the start of litigation. When the contractor failed to add the bond’s surety to the lawsuit within 60 days, the property owner sought summary judgment and obtained an order finding the lien was extinguished based on the operation of two sections of Florida’s Construction Lien law.

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the construction company’s president, finding that fact issues remained about whether the president ordered the company’s employee to place a tarp on a roof without also providing appropriate safety equipment.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal partially reversed a dismissal with prejudice of all of a general contractor’s claims against a subcontractor, finding that the credit agreement between the parties did not preclude claims for breach of an implied in fact contract or negligence. The case is an important reminder that not only do the terms of contracts matter, but so do when they are signed, who signs them, and how they are referred to in pleadings.

The final order imposed fines and continuing education against the electrical contractor, and possibly could have been avoided if the contractor had properly responded to the administrative complaint or properly preserved his rights to a final hearing. The case is a cautionary tale to contractors facing licensing complaints to take them seriously and comply with deadlines and instructions relating to the complaint.

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a roofing contractor against an insurance carrier on behalf of an insured, finding that the assignment of benefits contract between the contractor and insured did not strictly comply with the requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes.

The general contractor filed a lawsuit pursuant to 713.21, Florida Statutes, to discharge two construction liens recorded by a subcontractor. When the subcontractor filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint, as opposed to a lawsuit to foreclose, the court discharged the construction liens.

The lawsuit arose over claims of defective work asserted against a general contractor and its HVAC subcontractor. After a default judgment was entered against the HVAC subcontractor, and paid by the HVAC subcontractor, the general contractor attempted to have judgment summarily entered in its favor. Though successful at the trial level, the judgment was reversed on appeal by Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal.

Florida’s 9th Judicial Circuit recently ruled on competing motions for partial summary judgment, determining that a homeowner’s association’s claims for deficient construction of 104 townhomes were not barred by Florida’s statute of repose, and applying the date of the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the project and final payment due date to reach that conclusion.

The appellate court determined that because the homeowner was not able to prove they suffered any actual damages as a result of the claimed deceptive or unfair trade practice, the trial court should not have allowed the jury to award damages on the homeowner’s FDUPTA claim.

The subcontractor had obtained a $7,119.00 judgment in its favor for extra work it claimed to have been implicitly requested by the property owner, which was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s contract with the general contractor on the project.

The contract between the parties required that the contractor provide the final payment affidavit described in 713.06, Florida Statutes, before final payment was due. This case illustrates the importance of complying with contractual requirements pre-suit, and the consequences they can have, including increased litigation costs.