Decision Further Erodes Fla.'s Statute of Repose for Latent Construction Defects
Recent changes to Florida's Statue of Repose set forth in Florida Statute Section 95.11 have made it possible for developers and contractors to be sued for latent construction defects more than ten years after the completion of a project, which was previously recognized as a hard deadline.
January 09, 2019 at 09:23 AM
5 minute read
Recent changes to Florida's Statue of Repose set forth in Florida Statute Section 95.11 have made it possible for developers and contractors to be sued for latent construction defects more than ten years after the completion of a project, which was previously recognized as a hard deadline. The change in the statute increased the risk of uninsured claims because insurance policies providing coverage for construction defect claims (both those written before and after the statutory change) equated a ten-year policy term with the outside date for expiration of the insured's exposure—and this may no longer be the case. Further, a recent Florida court decision exacerbated the problem by holding that a homeowner was not required to file an actual lawsuit prior to expiration of the Statute of Repose, and that a simple pre-suit notice of claim under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes was sufficient to preserve rights and commence an “action” under Florida Statute Section 95.11.
On March 23, 2018, Florida's Gov. Rick Scott approved House Bill 875, which amended Florida Statute Section 95.11(3)(c) by extending the Statute of Repose (the ultimate deadline to assert claims) for latent construction defect claims. Prior to the amended language, the Statute of Repose was 10 years following project completion, but the revised statutory language extends this period and states as follows: “However, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims that arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out or attempted to be set out in a pleading may be commenced up to 1 year after the pleading to which such claims relate is served, even if such claims would otherwise be time barred.” The extended period is actually much greater than the one-year period set forth in the amended statutory language, since most complex claims for latent construction defects implicate many lower-tier subcontractors and suppliers, potentially with multiple layers of third-party claims.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals' holding in Gindel v. Centex Homes will cause increased confusion and further extend the date by which a lawsuit may be filed. In that case, purchasers of townhomes discovered latent construction defects shortly before the expiration of the Statute of Repose, see 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2112 (4th DCA Sept. 12, 2018). But, rather than file a lawsuit before the deadline, the homeowners served a pre-suit notice of claim, and only filed their lawsuit after the completion of the mandatory pre-suit procedure, which was more than ten years after the homeowners closed and took possession. The court ruled that “compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement of Chapter 558 constitutes an action for purposes of the statute of repose in the context of the improvement of real property. Chapter 558 was not intended as a stalling device in order to bar claims.” The Fourth District Court of Appeals permitted the homeowners' lawsuit to proceed.
So now, in addition to the ability to be sued for latent construction defects beyond ten years due to the revisions to Florida Statute §95.11, it is possible for claimants to preserve rights without actually filing a lawsuit in the first instance. The requirement of Florida Statute §95.11 to commence an “action” prior to the expiration of the Statute of Repose no longer requires filing a lawsuit or demanding arbitration, as serving a Notice of Claim per Chapter 558, Florida Statutes, is sufficient and the lawsuit/arbitration can wait until completion of the “pre-suit procedure” defined therein.
This “pre-suit procedure” for complex defect claims under Chapter 558 can continue for years following service of the initial notice of claim as the parties often agree to extend the deadlines while investigation, remedial work and negotiations continue. And, while Chapter 558 sets the minimum period of time for the procedure (“at least 60 days before filing any action, or at least 120 days before filing an action involving an association representing more than 20 parcels”), nothing prevents the parties from agreeing to extend these deadlines as is typical on complex matters or projects. This creates even more uncertainty and the potential for lawsuits and arbitrations to be initiated long after the expiration of 10 years, with potential third-party claims first commencing even later in time.
As such, the holding in Centex Homes represents significantly increases risk to developers and contractors and exacerbates the problem already created by recent amendments to Florida Statute Section 95.11. This erosion of Florida's Statute of Repose, and the lack of certainty that now exists with respect to the deadline to assert claims, must be carefully considered in the context of insurance coverage and other risk mitigation policies and procedures.
Stephen H. Reisman is vice chairman of Peckar & Abramson. He may be reached at [email protected].
Adam P. Handfinger is co-managing partner of the Miami office of the firm. He may be reached at [email protected]
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 AllTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 2How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 3Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 4Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 5Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
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