Fort Lauderdale Attorneys Save Developer from $7.3 Million Judgment
“It's one of those where near-misses don't count,” appellate lawyer John Pelzer said of statute of limitations deadline.
December 07, 2017 at 02:22 PM
8 minute read
Greenspoon Marder attorneys John Pelzer and Victor Kline helped reverse a $7.3 million judgment against an insurer held liable for a derailed real estate venture.
The Fort Lauderdale pair represented surety bond provider Lexon Insurance Co., which wrote two contracts guaranteeing payout if Priority Developers Inc. failed to complete site improvements for a Cape Coral subdivision.
Priority Developers had an obligation to create roads, sewer systems and other infrastructure as part of its agreement with the municipality that green-lighted the Village at Entrada. It started work on the residential project in 2005, but became a casualty of the housing market collapse and struggling to find continued financing before seeking bankruptcy protection and losing the project to foreclosure.
“It was a very common story,” said Pelzer, a Greenspoon Marder shareholder and appellate lawyer. “It was a development that was started in the go-go days of the mid-2000s and hit the brick wall of the recession.”
The city stopped performing site inspections by 2006 and the general contractor stopped work the following year—both citing nonpayment by Priority Developers.
The city contacted Lexon Insurance in 2010 to make a claim under Priority's $7.7 million surety bond in order to complete the project. Pelzer said Lexon requested routine paperwork to document Priority's default, but Cape Coral staff never responded. He said the city did not pursue the bond at that time but instead seemed to focus on securing another developer to complete the subdivision.
In March 2012, a new developer, Coco of Cape Coral LLC, purchased the project for $6.2 million—seven months before the city filed suit against Lexon for breach of contract and declaratory relief. It first joined the suit as an indispensable party but later became plaintiff after the city assigned it the claim.
Coco prevailed at trial, winning $7.3 million in compensatory damages and a companion ruling for $1.2 million in prejudgment interest.
The reversal also spares Lenox from liability for attorneys fees and other potential statutory claims.
Pelzer and Kline raised several issues on appeal, including one that unraveled Coco's victory without the court needing to weigh others. They argued Cape Coral had to bring suit within the five-year statute of limitations, triggered when the city closed its file on the project and marked the permit closed. That starting point created a deadline of Sept. 8, 2012.
The city didn't file suit until October 2012.
“It's one of those where near-misses don't count,” Pelzer said.
The parties disagreed on whether the clock started running the day Cape Coral filed its resolution to sue the insure, the day Lexon formally denied the bond claim, or when the land-use permit expired.
Opposing counsel, Edmond Koester of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester in Naples, is gearing for an appeal.
“Coco is seeking rehearing and to take the case to the Florida Supreme Court,” Koester said. “Coco believes that the city of Cape Coral timely filed the lawsuit, in part, because the development ordinance was not yet breached. The time for performing the work had not yet passed, the original developer filed for Chapter 11 reorganization, and Lexon had not denied the claim.”
The Fort Lauderdale pair represented surety bond provider Lexon Insurance Co., which wrote two contracts guaranteeing payout if Priority Developers Inc. failed to complete site improvements for a Cape Coral subdivision.
Priority Developers had an obligation to create roads, sewer systems and other infrastructure as part of its agreement with the municipality that green-lighted the Village at Entrada. It started work on the residential project in 2005, but became a casualty of the housing market collapse and struggling to find continued financing before seeking bankruptcy protection and losing the project to foreclosure.
“It was a very common story,” said Pelzer, a
The city stopped performing site inspections by 2006 and the general contractor stopped work the following year—both citing nonpayment by Priority Developers.
The city contacted Lexon Insurance in 2010 to make a claim under Priority's $7.7 million surety bond in order to complete the project. Pelzer said Lexon requested routine paperwork to document Priority's default, but Cape Coral staff never responded. He said the city did not pursue the bond at that time but instead seemed to focus on securing another developer to complete the subdivision.
In March 2012, a new developer, Coco of Cape Coral LLC, purchased the project for $6.2 million—seven months before the city filed suit against Lexon for breach of contract and declaratory relief. It first joined the suit as an indispensable party but later became plaintiff after the city assigned it the claim.
Coco prevailed at trial, winning $7.3 million in compensatory damages and a companion ruling for $1.2 million in prejudgment interest.
The reversal also spares Lenox from liability for attorneys fees and other potential statutory claims.
Pelzer and Kline raised several issues on appeal, including one that unraveled Coco's victory without the court needing to weigh others. They argued Cape Coral had to bring suit within the five-year statute of limitations, triggered when the city closed its file on the project and marked the permit closed. That starting point created a deadline of Sept. 8, 2012.
The city didn't file suit until October 2012.
“It's one of those where near-misses don't count,” Pelzer said.
The parties disagreed on whether the clock started running the day Cape Coral filed its resolution to sue the insure, the day Lexon formally denied the bond claim, or when the land-use permit expired.
Opposing counsel, Edmond Koester of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester in Naples, is gearing for an appeal.
“Coco is seeking rehearing and to take the case to the Florida Supreme Court,” Koester said. “Coco believes that the city of Cape Coral timely filed the lawsuit, in part, because the development ordinance was not yet breached. The time for performing the work had not yet passed, the original developer filed for Chapter 11 reorganization, and Lexon had not denied the claim.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readMiami Lawyers Beat Other Local Sectors, Attorneys Elsewhere in Office Usage
3 minute read'Would've Been Snoring Without Ya': Fort Lauderdale Jury Awards $4.5 Million in Condo Investment Spat
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250