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
© 2025 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 AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Initial Steps to Set Up a Fla. Appeal: Your Future Self (or Appellate Attorney) Will Thank You
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Upholds Law Requiring TikTok's Divestiture Or Shutdown
- 2The 'Substantial Certainty' of Employer Liability Policies
- 3Morgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
- 4Litigating the Written Word: Parol Evidence Rule and the Gist of the Action Doctrine in Fraud Claims
- 5Why Wait? Arbitrate! The Value of Consenting to Arbitrate Your SUM Cases at NAM
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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