Legislature Changes Critical Deadlines in Construction Defect Litigation
A new Florida law will prevent developers and contractors from being left holding the bag when they face construction defect lawsuits filed shortly before the 10-year deadline for such claims.
May 21, 2018 at 10:43 AM
5 minute read
A new Florida law will prevent developers and contractors from being left holding the bag when they face construction defect lawsuits filed shortly before the 10-year deadline for such claims.
On March 27, Gov. Rick Scott signed into law House Bill 875, which provides parties faced with a construction or design defect lawsuit up to one year to file pass-through claims (counterclaims, cross-claim or third-party claims) regardless of the application of the statute of repose that would otherwise serve as an absolute bar to presenting the pass-through claim. The legislation will apply to actions commenced after July 1. For lawsuits already in existence, the legislation would require any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party to be filed before July 1, 2019.
The new law, which amends Section 95.11(3)(c) of the Florida Statutes, will likely have far-reaching implications in construction defects litigation, which can involve numerous parties. For instance, a property owner may sue its general contractor for alleged defects in a structure. Often, the general contractor will have delegated specific fields of work (such as plumbing, electricity, or roofing) to its subcontractors, and those subcontractors, in turn, will also have delegated specific items of work to their sub-subcontractors. As a result, after the property owner sues its general contractor, the general contractor may serve third-party claims on its subcontractors; the subcontractors may serve third-party claims against their sub-subcontractors, material suppliers or product manufacturers; and any one of these parties could serve cross-claims or counterclaims against any of the other parties if appropriate.
A similar situation often takes place between developers, general contractors and design professionals. However, the need for such claims may not become readily apparent until well after the litigation is under way and extensive discovery has been obtained from numerous sources. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure liberally grant litigants the permission to bring such claims, but subject to the time limitations set forth by Florida's statute of repose.
The 10-year statute of repose is intended to serve as a firm deadline for parties to file suit, unlike Florida's four-year statute of limitations for construction defect claims that generally begins to run when a party knew or should have known about an alleged defect (in the case of condominium projects, it does not begin to run until the date of turnover to unit owners). The 10-year deadline begins to run from the latest of the following: the date an owner takes actual possession; the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; the date construction is abandoned; or the date when a contract between an engineer, architect, or contractor and its employer is completed. Florida courts often reject arguments that the statute of repose can be tolled, including when general contractors argue that they had insufficient time to investigate a claim to identify subcontractors who actually performed the work a plaintiff claims is defective.
This change in the law is of particular importance in South Florida given the number of projects that were completed in 2008. Under the existing law, if a property owner now files suit against a developer or general contractor for defects in a 2008 building, the developer or general contractor would have only a few months, if not less, to identify all relevant design parties, subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers that are directly responsible for the alleged defects and sue them before their claims are time barred. Once the new law goes into effect, the same developer or general contractor faced with a new lawsuit on a 2008 building would have an entire year to identify all relevant parties and file pass-through claims. Likewise, a subcontractor that receives one of those new pass-through claims would have a year of its own pass-through claims against its sub-subcontractors, suppliers or product manufacturers.
The practical effect of this change could be that construction defect lawsuits will be extended in length because there will no longer be a 10-year absolute bar to bringing claims against new parties. It is possible that courts will enact their own procedures to prevent lawsuits from continuing indefinitely while new parties are brought into the case and to control the procedural aspects of these cases. It is also possible that pass-through claim defendants would argue that the new statute requires all such pass-through claims to be filed within one year of the pleading giving rise to the pass-through claim. However, pass-through claim plaintiffs could respond that the new statute's use of the word “may” instead of “shall” before the one-year time period means that the statute is not intended to serve as a limitation on the time to file pass-through claims.
Ultimately, this new law poses an interesting question as to whether the Legislature has the ability to enact a law that will impact the timeframes for cases to be litigated to conclusion. These matters are generally considered procedural and therefore within the Supreme Court of Florida's exclusive rule-making authority. The new law may ultimately generate more litigation, but perhaps not of the type envisioned by the Legislature.
Miguel J. Chamorro is a partner at Lydecker Diaz in Miami, focusing on litigation and transactional work.
Spencer Mallard is a partner and chair of the firm's construction group.
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Don’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
- 2Federal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
- 3Unchartered Waters: The AI Phishing Wave Is Here
- 4AI Poisoning: A Novel Cybersecurity Option
- 5The Expanding Universe of Attorney Cyber Liability
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