Category Archives: Uncategorized

DEFERENCE GIVEN TO ARBITRATION PROVISIONS

Posted on by


The recent case of Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowner’s Association, Inc., 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1705a (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) involves a dispute by a homeowner’s association against its developer / homebuilder. In this case, the association sued the developer / homebuilder for building code violations under Florida Statute s. 553.84. The association did this in order to try to circumvent an arbitration provision in the developer / homebuilder’s limited warranty given in favor of initial purchasers. The developer / homebuilder moved to compel arbitration which was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Second District Court of appeals reversed the trial court finding that statutory claims were covered by the arbitration provision.

 

The issue to remember is that deference is given to arbitration provisions and that statutory claims, breach of contract claims, warranty claims, and tort claims are all claims that may be submitted to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision. In Pulte Home, the association, for strategic reasons, did not want to arbitrate and tried to pursue a claim that did not subject it to arbitration.  Although the Second District did not recite the arbitration provision in the opinion, the Court maintained that the agreement to arbitrate in the limited warranty given to initial purchasers covered statutory claims.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

OWNERS: UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS

Posted on by


Having an understanding of the statute of limitations when an owner notices a construction defect with their property is essential to ensure that legal actions are timely filed. Not having this appreciation could have a devastating impact. It could result in an owner being legally barred from pursuing an action for debiltating construction defects or damages. This should never be the case.

 

The statute of limitations for construction disputes is primarily governed by Florida Statute §95.11(3)(c). This section provides that there is a four year statute of limitations for:

 

“An action founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property, with the time running from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest; except that, when the action involves a latent defect, the time runs from the time the defect is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. In any event, the action must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.”

 

Now, what exactly does all of this mean? To begin with, this means that the statute of limitations for construction disputes commences on the latest of: i) the owner’s possession of the property, ii) the issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the governing building department, iii) the date construction was abandoned if the project was not completed, or iv) the date the contract was terminated (which would also typically be the case if the project was not completed).

 

For a completed construction project, the dates I like to focus on are the temporary and/or permanent certificates of occupancy dates because these signify the dates the owner is entitled to occupy their property in whole or in part. These are also hard dates that can be confirmed through the building department and the closing of the building permit. The owner has four years to initiate a lawsuit from this date.

 

However, when an owner discovers a construction defect or damage to their property (i.e., water intrusion or leak, mold, cracked or spalling stucco, etc.), it is frequently a discovery that occurs many years AFTER completion and occupancy. When this occurs, the statute of limitations becomes less clear.

 

The discovery of a defect or damage after completion is referred to as latent defect because the defect or damage was not patently visible during construction (or reasonably discovered with the exercise of due diligence prior to the owner’s acceptance and occupancy of the property). In this circumstance, the statute of limitations commences on the date the latent defect was discovered. But, under the law, in no event can the cause of action be pursued more than ten years after the factors referenced above (project completion). This cap on when an action can be filed with respect to a given construction dispute is referred to as the statute of repose.

 

For example, let’s assume a project was completed on December 31, 2010. Many years later, on December 31, 2017, the owner discovers serious latent defects. This discovery starts the running of the statute of limitations. But, the owner would not have four years to sue on these latent defects because if he waited the four years until December 31, 2021, his suit would be barred by the statute of repose, which would cap suits relating to the project ten years from completion on December 31, 2020.

 

Understanding when the statute of limitations would commence and when actions would be barred under the law is important and, many times, factually complicated. Recently, the Third District Court of Appeal in Hochberg v. Thomas Carter Painting, Inc., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1200f (3d DCA 2011), analyzed the running of the statute of limitations in a construction dispute. In this case, owners hired a contractor to build their beautiful new home. After the home was completed in 2003 and the owners moved in, they discovered mold and water intrusion damage. The owners immediately hired an engineer to analyze their discovery and the root of the defects. The expert produced a preliminary report in 2004 addressing the cause of the defects.

 

In 2008, the owners sued the subcontractors responsible for the defects for negligence and violation of Florida’s building code. Subcontractors argued that the owners filed their lawsuit outside of the statute of limitations because they discovered the defects in 2003 but waited until 2008 to file their lawsuit. The owners argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled until they discovered the exact nature of the defects or magnitude of the underlying problem and which trade subcontractors the defects could be attributed to.

 

The appellate court held that, “Florida law is clear that ‘where there is an obvious manifestation of a defect, notice will be inferred at the time of manifestation [discovery] regardless of whether the plaintiff has knowledge of the exact nature of the defect.’” Hochberg quoting Performing Arts Center Auth. v. Clark Constr. Grp., Inc., 789 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In other words, even though the owners did not understand the magnitude of the defects or what specifically was causing the water intrusion into their home, the court maintained that their initial discovery of water intrusion and related damage (i.e, mold, wet carpeting) triggered the commencement of the statute of limitations.

 

This holding is important because when an owner discovers construction defects and damage, they do not discover or appreciate the magnitude of the discovery. For instance, an owner may discover wet interior finishes, smell or discover mold, discover cracks in their exterior finishes, or a roof leak, but will not typically know the specific defects causing these problems. They also typically will not have an appreciation as to the overall significance of the problem. Owners hire expert consultants to analyze these issues to not only determine the root and significance of the problem, but the method to fix the problems. The owners in this case tried to cleverly argue that the statute of limitations for latent defects should be tolled until an owner discovers the precise nature and cause of the defects, which would often correspond with the date the owners receive an opinion from their expert consultants. However, the court focused on the actual discovery of the defects or damage by the owners, rather than when the owner learned the magnitude of the problem.

 

Owners that discover a defect or damage with their home or property should absolutely not ignore the problem. Ignoring the problem could only exacerbate the underlying problems while potentially putting the owner in a situation where he is outside of the statute of limitations or repose and can no longer pursue an action against the parties responsible for the problems. Again, this should never be the case.

 

For more information on the statute of limitations and the statute of repose, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/watering-down-the-10-year-statute-of-repose-period-for-construction-disputes/

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

PRESERVING CONSTRUCTION LIEN RIGHTS BY SERVING A NOTICE TO OWNER

Posted on by


Entities such as subcontractors and suppliers that are not in privity of contract with the owner are required to serve a notice to owner in order to perfect their construction lien rights. See Fla. Stat. 713.06. Not timely serving a notice to owner can be fatal to a lien foreclosure action by an entity that is not in privity of contract with an owner.

 

 
The case of Marble Unlimited, Inc. v. Weston Real Estate Investment Corp., 38 Fla. L. Weekly D686b (4th DCA 2013) discusses notices to owners. In this case, a marble contractor contracted directly with the owner to install granite countertops in condominium units. (Due to the privity of contract, a notice to owner was not required.) The owner, at some point during construction, transferred its ownership of condominium units to a related entity. The issue was whether the marble contractor should have served a notice to owner on the “new” owner of the condominium units. The Fourth District said NO!, i.e., this would simply “allow corporate owners to play a shell game with ownership and frustrate the valid claims of contractors who complete work on real property.” Marble Unlimited.

 
Importantly, the Fourth District discussed cases when there is common ownership between the owner and the contractor. For example, let’s assume an owner and contractor, although maintain separate corporate names, have a common identity. The contractor then hires a subcontractor. In this situation, there is an argument that the subcontractor does not need to serve a notice to owner on the owner because no prejudice would exist to the owner that should be aware of the subcontractor based on its common identify with the entity that hired the subcontractor. See Marble Unlimited discussing Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Buck, 594 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1992) and Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., 218 So.2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

 

 
In an abundance of caution, an entity not in privity with an owner should serve a notice to owner to preserve its lien rights as a matter of course, even when the owner and general contractor share a common identity / ownership. The entity should know prior to performing work whether they will have payment bond or lien rights in the event of nonpayment, and undertake actions to ensure they are preserving their rights from the get-go.

 

 

For more information on Notice to Owner, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/contractors-and-suppliers-do-not-neglect-the-notice-requirements-in-floridas-lien-law/

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

INTERFERING, EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

Posted on by


Horizontal projects (public roadway projects and other infrastructure improvements, etc.) often require the identification and relocation of existing underground utilities. The underground utility company / owner is typically notified of the project (and the plans for the project) so that it can identify and relocate existing utilities if they interfere with the project’s plans.

 

The recent case of Florida Power & Light Co. v. Russell Engineering, Inc., 96 So.3d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), dealt with a utility company that did not properly locate an underground utility. This meant that the contractor installing underground drainage piping had to incur additional costs because the existing utility interfered with the planned path of the drainage piping.

 

The public owner assigned its rights against the utility company to the contractor that installed the drainage piping to recoup the additional costs. The utility company argued that under Florida statutory law (particularly Florida Statute sections 337.403 and 337.404) the public owner has an exclusive remedy of requiring the owner of the interfering utility to relocate or remove the utility before it can legally incur any damages. The trial court disagreed and damages were awarded to the contractor. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling focusing on the following italicized language in section 337.403:

 

“(1) Whenever it shall become necessary for the authority to remove or relocate any utility as provided in the preceding section, the [utility company] shall be given notice of such removal or relocation and an order requiring the payment of the cost thereof, and shall be given reasonable time, which shall not be less than 20 nor more than 30 days, in which to appear before the authority to contest the reasonableness of the order . . . .”

 

The Fourth District found that this language was important because in the instant case it was not necessary for the existing, interfering underground utility to be removed or relocated because the contractor simply worked around the utility resulting in its costs to increase.

 

This case supports a negligence argument against a utility owner in the event additional costs are incurred due to the utility company failing to property locate an existing utility. (This was the situation in the discussed case because the drainage piping was simply redesigned to bypass the interfering, existing utility.) However, it would seem that a public owner and contractor would have to work around the existing utility (through a redesign, etc.). On the other hand, if the existing utility could not be worked around, then the statutory procedures set forth in sections 337.403 and 337.404 (not discussed in this posting) would apply.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

ASSERTING NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A CONSTRUCTION-MANAGER OR OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE

Posted on by



Cannon v. Fournier, 57 So.3d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) is an interesting personal injury case that touches upon whether a contractor’s qualifying agent can be individually liable for acts and omissions of the limited liability construction company he/she qualifies and whether a construction company can be held liable for negligence to a third party.

 

In this case, an owner wanted to build a new house. The owner hired a licensed construction company to essentially serve as a construction manager-agency (not-at-risk), although this case does not use this term. In other words, the owner would contract directly with all of the trade subcontractors, but it was the construction company that helped the owner obtain a residential permit, referred trade subcontractors directly to the owner, and supervised, consulted, and coordinated the trade subcontractor’s work, and assisted with inspections at the project. The construction company undertook many of the tasks a general contractor would ordinarily undertake except for obtaining the residential permit and contracting directly with the trade subcontractors.

 

One of the trade subcontractors the owner hired was a framer. This happened to be the only, or one of the only, subcontractors that did not come referred to the owner by the construction company. During construction, it was discovered that a beam had been incorrectly installed on the second floor. The construction company (through its qualifying agent) met with the framer to discuss a solution to this issue, and it was during the correction of this issue that a carpenter working for the framer fell from the second floor severely injuring himself.

 

The injured worker sued the construction company and its qualifying agent under a negligence theory saying, among other things, they had a duty to perform all work in a competent, safe and workmanlike manner and they breached this duty which resulted in the injured worker falling. The construction company and its qualifying agent moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the qualifying agent dismissing him from the lawsuit, but declined to enter summary judgment in favor of the construction company.

 

On appeal, the Second District held that the trial court denying summary judgment in favor of the construction company but granting it in favor of its qualifying agent was inconsistent. The Second District held that:

 

“[O]fficers or agents of corporations may be individually liable in tort if they commit or participate in a tort, even if their acts are within the course and scope of their employment. The same rule applies to limited liability companies. Thus, to the extent that the LLC could be held liable for its acts or omissions in connection with the construction of the Hoffmans’ [owner] residence, Mr. Fournier [qualifying agent] may be held liable as well.” Cannon, 875 So.2d at 881 (internal citations omitted).

 

Under the Second District’s rationale, if the construction company owed a duty of care to the plaintiff injured worker, then presumably, so did the qualifying agent. To determine whether the company owed a duty of care, the Second District focused on whether the construction company was serving in the role of the general contractor. The Court focused on many of the facts previously mentioned that a construction manager-agency would undertake, specifically, the coordination, communication, and supervising of construction workers and activities at the job site (despite not contracting with any of the trade subcontractors). To that end, the Court expressed:

 

“The circuit court continued by correctly identifying the critical point as the extent of the LLC’s control over and supervision of the job site. A person or entity that controls a supervises the job site has a duty to provide workers on the job with a safe place to work. If the LLC assumed such a duty voluntarily or by contract, it may be held liable to workers who sustain injuries on the job caused by a breach of that duty without regard to whether the LLC was acting as a general contractor.” Cannon, 875 So.3d at 882.

 

Accordingly, the Second District reversed the summary judgment entered in favor of the qualifying agent (because if his construction company could be negligent, then so could he under the Court’s rationale.)

 

Outside of the personal injury context, this case can be used to support a negligence argument against an owner’s representative or construction manager-agency by a non-privity subcontractor, etc. The duty owed would be that the entity is essentially acting as a general contractor (or has similar job-related functions), but just without the title. Therefore, the entity owes a duty to ensure that construction is properly supervised, coordinated, and managed in a competent, safe and workmanlike manner.

 

Furthermore, this case can be used to support an argument against a qualifying agent to hold that the qualifying agent should be held individually liable for the torts of the construction company he/she qualifies. This argument would carry more weight if the company, similar to the company in Cannon, was a sole-owned company with the qualifying agent serving in the role of the owner, qualifying agent, and lone employee of the company. However, even if this were not the case, if the qualifying agent is the one overseeing construction activities, then arguably, if their company commits a tort, they too can be held liable for participating in the tort, especially considering companies can only act through people.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING LICENSES

Posted on by


Florida law requires general contractors (and certain specialty subcontractors) to be licensed with the state of Florida. See Florida Statutes Chapter 489, Part I. This is because construction contracting, similar to other professions, is regulated. The law treats the licensure of contractors very seriously in that, “[C]ontracts entered into on or after October 1, 1990, by an unlicensed contractor shall be unenforceable in law or in equity by the unlicensed contractor.” Fla.Stat. §489.128(1). Therefore, an unlicensed contractor that performs work will be unable to enforce nonpayment, which would include not properly being able to lien or foreclose on a lien. This could financially ruin a contractor that did a great job on a project but cannot secure final payment because it was not properly licensed.

 

Contractors need to ensure they are properly licensed prior to entering into a contract with an owner. Likewise, owners need to ensure that the contractor they are hiring is properly licensed. The construction contracting licensure law can be difficult navigating; therefore, having an attorney assist with any licensure questions is important to save both contractors and owners the heartache that may ensue if proper licenses are not in place.

 

In determining whether a contractor is unlicensed, the law provides:

 

“[A]n individual is unlicensed if the individual does not have a license required by this part concerning the scope of the work to be performed under the contract. A business organization is unlicensed if the business organization does not have a primary or secondary qualifying agent in accordance with this part concerning the scope of work to be performed under the contract. For purposes of this section, if a state license is not required for the scope of work to be performed under the contract, the individual performing that work is not considered unlicensed.
***
[A] contractor shall be considered unlicensed only if the contractor was [a] unlicensed on the effective date of the original contract for the work, if stated therein, or if not stated, [b] the date the last party the contract executed it, if stated therein. [c] If the contract does not establish such a date, the contractor shall be considered unlicensed only if the contractor was unlicensed on the first date upon which the contractor provided labor, services, or materials under the contract.” Fla.Stat. §489.128(1)(a), (c).

 

Recently, in Austin Building Company v. Rago, Ltd., 2011 WL 1563797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), the Third District dealt with the issue of whether a general contractor and subcontractor where properly licensed. In this case, an owner entered into a contract with the properly licensed general contractor (“GC”) in March 2005 for the construction of a condominium in Miami. The contract provided that once the GC’s affiliate (“Affiliate”) became a licensed general contractor in Florida, the GC would assign the contract and related documents to the Affiliate.

 

After the execution of the contract, GC engaged a structural concrete subcontractor (“Subcontractor”) that immediately commenced work in April 2005 without a formal contract in place. Months later, the Affiliate became licensed and formally executed the subcontract with the Subcontractor. The Affiliate, however, terminated the Subcontractor due to the Subcontractor’s defective work and, as a result, the Subcontractor sued the GC, the Affiliate, and their payment bond for nonpayment, and the Affiliate countersued the Subcontractor. Both parties moved for summary judgment arguing that the other was not a properly licensed contractor and, therefore, should not be entitled to enforce the subcontract.

 

The Third District Court of Appeal found that there remained a question of fact as to whether the GC or the Affiliate served as the general contractor when the Subcontractor started performing work. Notably, at the time the Subcontractor started performing construction activities without a contract, the Affiliate was not a licensed contractor. However, the GC was licensed. If the GC was the contractor at the start of the Subcontractor’s performance, the GC and/or the Affiliate should be in a position to enforce the Subcontract (which would seem to be the case given that it was contemplated when the owner hired the GC that the GC would eventually assign the contract and related documents to the Affiliate when the Affiliate became licensed). However, if the Affiliate is deemed to be the contractor at the start of the Subcontractor’s performance, then the Affiliate should not be able to enforce the subcontract to recover sums associated with the Subcontractor’s defective work because it was admittedly not a licensed contractor when the Subcontractor commenced performance.

 

The Third District further found that the Subcontractor did not need to be licensed and could enforce the subcontract. Although the case does not fully explain, it remains uncertain as to what activities the concrete Subcontractor performed that would have required a state license.

 

This case reveals the importance of proper construction contracting licenses. If the Subcontractor was not properly licensed with the state, then it would have no avenue to recover for nonpayment. This is difficult for many under capitalized subcontractors that rely on timely payments to fund their operations. On the other hand, if the contractor was not properly licensed, then it would have no avenue to recover against the Subcontractor for defective work. This would then make the contractor directly responsible for the Subcontractor’s work without any true avenue to recoup its costs against the Subcontractor.

 

For more on contractor licensing, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/more-on-the-harsh-realities-of-contractors-not-being-properly-licensed/

and

https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/the-harsh-realities-of-a-contractor-not-being-properly-licensed/

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

COMPLYING WITH POST-LOSS POLICY CONDITIONS UNDER AN INSURANCE POLICY

Posted on by


Insurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, contain post-loss obligations (that serve as conditions precedent to payment). This essentially means that when an insured submits a claim to an insurer, an insurer can demand obligations from the insured, and the insured is required to comply with these obligations. These obligations could be requiring the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss, allowing the insurer to inspect the damaged property, submitting all applicable documentation to the insurer, and allowing the insurer to take an examination under oath of the insured. An examination under oath is simply a pre-suit deposition where the insured answers the insurer’s questions under oath about the insurance claim with a court reporter memorializing the questions and answers. While these post-loss obligations can pose an inconvenience to the insured, they are obligations under the policy (the insurance contract) and refusing to comply with these obligations will allow the insurer to easily argue that the insured forfeited insurance coverage. Thus, an insured could be in a position where they are denied coverage for failure to comply with post-loss obligations in an insurance policy when, had they complied, there would have been coverage and payment.

 

To briefly illustrate, recently, in Edwards v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1269a (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), a homeowner, through a public adjuster, submitted a claim to its property insurer for reimbursement for the costs to fix roof damage from a hurricane. The insurer made numerous efforts to obtain documentation of expenses that the homeowner incurred to fix the roof, but was never provided this documentation. The insurer also scheduled an examination under oath of the insured, which was cancelled prior to the scheduled date. The insured providing documentation to reflect the amount of the claim and submitting to an examination under oath were post-loss conditions in the insurance policy. Because the insured did not comply with these policy conditions, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the insured forfeited coverage: “Failure to comply with a condition precedent to payment relieves the insurer of its duty to make payment.” See Edwards.

 

Accordingly, an insured that submits a property insurance claim (or any insurance claim, for that matter) should ensure they are complying with post-loss policy conditions that are being requested by the insurer.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

ARGUMENTS FOR LENDER LIABILITY WHEN CONTRACTORS REMAIN UNPAID ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Posted on by


When a lender provides a construction loan they will have a security interest in the property in the form of a mortgage that should be superior to any construction liens. This is because the lender records its mortgage on the property collateralizing its loan prior to the recordation of the notice of commencement. Since construction liens usually relate back in time and take priority as of the date the notice of commencement was recorded, lenders want to be certain their mortgage was recorded first so that they have the number one priority in the event the borrower / owner does not pay according to the construction loan. This mortgage priority is the lender’s true leverage in the event of nonpayment.

 

In your typical construction project that is financed through a construction loan, the owner enters into a construction loan with the construction lender. The construction lender immediately records its mortgage on the property and subsequently records the notice of commencement prior to the disbursement of loan proceeds. The owner enters into a direct contract with the general contractor who is responsible for building the project. The general contractor then contracts the trade subcontractors to build various portions of the project.

 

What happens if a construction projects is halted mid-construction due to an owner not having enough money to complete the project, or a project is finished, but there are contractors that have not been paid for their work? In this situation, contractors that properly preserved their lien rights pursuant to Florida’s Lien Law (Florida Statutes Chapter 713) can record their statutory lien and foreclose on their lien. But…and this is a big but…if there is no equity in the property and the construction lender has number one priority, foreclosing the lien may only result in a pyrrhic victory because there will not be enough equity in the property to pay off the lender and the foreclosing contractor(s). This has been the unfortunate case in a recent economic climate when projects were financed and started during the construction boom.

 

To illustrate, let’s assume an owner took out a ten million dollar construction loan to build a project and the project was completed or halted mid-construction. The lender recorded a mortgage on the property to secure its loan and disbursed all of the loan proceeds. The owner failed to pay its general contractor one million dollars. However, the project is now only worth seven million dollars due to the decline in property values, and the owner still owes close to ten million dollars to the construction lender. In this case, although the contractor wisely recorded a construction lien, foreclosing on the lien may have little effect. The reason being is that there is no equity in the property so that whoever purchases the property at the foreclose sale–which would be doubtful because the property is worth less than what is owed–is going to take it subject to the lender’s mortgage. The contractor would need someone to purchase the property for at least one million dollars (again, highly doubtful) in order to get paid its principal amount. While the contractor can use its judgment amount to serve as a bid credit to bid and obtain title to the property, this may make little sense if the contractor does not want to pay off the mortgage because it will only be a matter of time before the construction lender forecloses and takes title to the property. Indeed, many times the lender initiates its own mortgage foreclosure lawsuit during the pendency of the contractor’s foreclosure lawsuit and looks to foreclose the contractor’s subordinate lien interest which means there is slim to no chance the contractor is going to recover on its lien.

 

In this illustration, while the contractor can also sue the owner for breach of contract in addition to foreclosing on its lien, sophisticated owners / developers are single-purpose entities that own nothing but the project they are developing. Stated differently, smart developers form an entity for each project they are building and the entity they establish only owns the property—the same property that is being foreclosed. Or, the developer, if not a single-purpose entity, may not have the capital or assets to pay a one million dollar judgment and essentially be what is referred to as “uncollectible.” Thus, the contractor may be forced to face a difficult reality of having self-financed construction work only to see no avenue of recovery to recoup its expenditures. This is tough to swallow.

 

However, the contractor may be able to assert creative arguments against the construction lender that would serve as its only true recourse in recovering what it is owed under certain circumstances. Sometimes these creative arguments need to be explored in detail in furtherance of optimizing a monetary recovery.

 

A. An Equitable Lien on Undisbursed Construction Loan Proceeds

 

If there remain undisbursed loan proceeds, the contractor may have an argument that it should have an equitable lien on these proceeds if the construction project was completed. The justification being that a lender would be unjustly enriched if it were allowed to keep these undisbursed funds in addition to having the security of the mortgage when the project is completed. Morgan-Oswood & Associates, Inc. of Florida v. Continental Mortgage Investors, 323 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

 

To explain, in Morgan-Oswood, a general contractor completed a hotel. The owner, however, breached its construction loan agreement resulting in the lender foreclosing on the property while it still retained undisbursed loan proceeds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that: “to allow the lender to retain the undisbursed construction loan funds, while getting the security for the loan as well, would result in unjust enrichment at the expense of the contractor, and the contractor was therefore entitled to an equitable lien against those funds.” Emerald Designs, Inc. v. Citibank F.S.B., 626 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) discussing Morgan-Oswood.

 

Additionally, in Emerald Designs, a subcontractor filed a counterclaim against a lender that foreclosed on a project that had been completed seeking an equitable lien on undisbursed construction loan proceeds. The Third District Court of Appeal held that a subcontractor could claim an equitable lien against undisbursed construction loan funds when the construction project is completed and the lender forecloses.

 

Therefore, if it is determined that the lender did not disburse all of the loan proceeds on a completed project, this argument should be explored.

 

B. Being Equitably Subordinated to the Priority of the Construction Lender’s Mortgage

 

Although this is an extremely difficult argument, there may be an argument that the contractor’s lien should be equitably subordinated to the lender’s priority when the lender disbursed all loan proceeds if the contractor can establish the lender engaged in fraud or affirmative deception.

 

In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Palmer First National Bank and Trust Company of Sarasota, 361 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1978), the lender assured subcontractors that there were sufficient loan proceeds to complete the project and that there would be no need for the subcontractors to record liens. The subcontractors continued to perform work only to remain unpaid. The subcontractors argued that the lender should be equitably estopped from asserting its priority so that their equitable liens could have priority over the lender’s mortgage. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed expressing, “The mistaken observation that there seemed to be enough money left in undisbursed loan funds to complete the project falls short of what we contemplated as ‘affirmative deception’ equivalent to fraud and misrepresentation which would justify the imposition of an equitable lien.” Rinker Materials at 158-59. The Court further elaborated: “We hold that a party may successfully maintain a suit under the theory of equitable estoppel only where there is proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or other affirmative deception. To hold otherwise would inject an unnecessary amount of uncertainty into the construction loan industry.” Id at 159.

 

This ruling leaves open the difficult-to-prove possibility of claiming a priority position over a lender’s mortgage when the lender disbursed all of the loan proceeds and there is proof of some affirmative deception committed by the lender.

 

C. A Lender’s Liability under Florida Statute §713.3471

 

Florida Statutes §713.3471 (contained within Florida’s Lien Law) imposes responsibilities on construction lenders that could expose them to certain liability. Contractors should familiarize themselves with these responsibilities if they remain unpaid, especially if they remain unpaid significant funds due to a project that failed mid-construction.

 

1. Florida Statutes Section 713.3471(2)

 

Subsection 713.3471(2) requires a lender to provide the contractor and any other lienor that has given the lender notice to owner (i.e., preserved its lien rights) five business days notice of making its final determination to cease further advances under the loan. The lender shall not be liable to the contractor based upon its determination to cease further advances if the lender gives the contractor notice within five days and the determination is permitted under the loan documents.

 

Importantly, if the lender fails to provide notice to the contractor within five days, the lender is liable to the contractor to the extent of the actual value of materials and direct labor costs furnished by the contractor plus 15% for overhead, profit and all other costs from the date that the lender’s determination should have been served on the contractor and the date on which notice of the lender’s determination is actually served on the contractor. The lender’s liability is limited to the amount of undisbursed funds at the time the notice should have been given unless the failure to provide notice was done with the intent of defrauding the contractor.

 

This subsection should be explored when projects cease or fail mid-construction. The point is that the contractor should not continue to perform work when the lender will not be funding the work. This makes sense because contractors don’t want to work for free. Thus, contractors that are involved in a failed project and owed a substantial amount of money should explore the date they received the notice from the lender (assuming a notice was received) versus the date the notice should have been served.

 

2. Florida Statutes Section 713.3471(3)

 

Subsection 713.3471(3) applies to the use of designated construction loan proceeds and provides:

 

“If the lender and the borrower have designated a portion of the construction loan proceeds, the borrower may not authorize the lender to disburse the funds so designated for any other purpose until the owner serves the contractor and any other lienor who has given the owner a notice to owner with written notice of that decision, including the amount of such loan proceeds to be disbursed. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘designated loan proceeds’ means that portion of the loan allocated to actual construction costs of the facility and shall not include allocated loan proceeds for tenant improvements where the contractor has no contractual obligation or work order to proceed with such improvements.”

 

Under this subsection, the lender will not be liable to the contractor based upon the reallocation of construction loan proceeds if notice is timely given. However, if the owner fails to provide notice to the contractor and disburses designated construction loan proceeds for any other purpose, the lender is liable to the contractor to the extent of any such disbursements or to the extent of the actual value of the materials and direct labor costs plus 15% for overhead, profit, and all other costs, whichever is less. (Notably, this subsection does not apply to residential projects of four units or less or to construction loans less than $1,000,000 unless the lender has committed to making more than one loan exceeding $1,000,000. The lender is also exempt from liability under this subsection if the total amount of proceeds to be disbursed from the designated proceeds does not exceed five percent of the designated proceeds or $100,000, whichever is less.)

 

This subsection may come in handy if it is revealed that designated construction loan proceeds were applied for a different purpose to the detriment of the contractor. The point also being that if the contractor knows that designated loan proceeds are being applied elsewhere, they are going to know that there likely isn’t going to be enough money to fund the completion of construction.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

UNDERSTANDING INSURANCE COVERAGE – NOT AN EASY FEAT

Posted on by


Knowing what losses or damages are covered under your insurance policy is extremely important and oftentimes ignored until there is a substantial a loss or damage. But, understanding your insurance coverage is very important so that you know exactly what is covered and what supplemental insurance you may want to procure to protect your interests.

 

Most owners obtain some form of property insurance. Property insurance is designed to cover those direct losses (or “all-risks”) except those losses that are excluded from coverage. This is tricky because you start off with broad coverage that gets dwindled down by various exclusions and policy endorsements that restrict coverage. Understanding these exclusions and endorsements is the key to knowing what is covered and, in many cases, how to present a claim to an insurer. This is not easy because insurance policies are confusing.

 

To explain the confusing language in insurance policies, in Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Number, MI2226 v. Chabad Lubavitch of Greater Florida, Inc., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1218a (4th DCA 2011), a building was damaged when a crane landed on it during a tropical storm. The owner had two property insurance policies. It had a policy covering wind damage (“Wind Policy”) and a separate all-risk policy with Lloyd’s of London that excluded windstorm (“Lloyd’s Policy”). The owner’s damages exceeded the limits of its Wind Policy so it smartly submitted a claim under the Lloyd’s Policy for the additional damages arguing that this policy should provide coverage becuase the crane, not the wind, actually caused the damage.

 

The Lloyd’s Policy contained the following exclusion for wind:

 

“We will not pay for loss or damage:

1. Caused directly or indirectly by Windstorm or Hail, regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss or damage…

But if Windstorm or Hail results in a cause of loss other than rain, snow, sand or dust, and that resulting cause of loss is a Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by such Covered Cause of Loss. For example, if the Windstorm or Hail damages a heating system and fire results, the loss or damage attributable to the fire is covered subject to any other applicable policy provisions.”

 

This bolded language is known as the Ensuing Loss Exception to the windstorm exclusion. Confusing – Oh Yes. What this language really says is that the policy will not cover wind damage, BUT if the wind results in a loss that sets in motion another loss that would be covered under the policy, there is coverage for the other loss. The language in the policy is so confusing that it contains a hypothetical. The hypothetical is really what gives meaning to the application of this Ensuing Loss Exception. The hypothetical illustrates that if a windstorm damages a heating system, the damage to the heating system would not be covered due to the wind exclusion. But, if the damage to the heating system sets in motion an intervening fire that causes damage, this fire damage would be covered. The reason this damage would be covered is because it was not caused by the wind, but rather the ensuing fire (even though the fire was set in motion by damage caused by the wind).

 

In this case, the Fourth District remanded this case to the trial court to determine the actual cause of the crane falling on the building since it was a factual issue in dispute. Under the Court’s line of thinking, if the crane fell on the building because of wind, there would not be coverage under the Lloyd’s Policy due to the wind exclusion. However, if the crane fell on the building due to some other intervening loss set in motion by the wind there should be coverage under this Ensuing Loss Exception. In other words, if the crane fell because some flying object picked up by the wind struck the crane causing the crane to fall on the building, there would arguably be coverage for the loss to the building.

 

This case is an example of the confusing language in policies and having an understanding of the language can enable you to present arguments to maximize insurance coverage.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

THE FINAL FURNISHING DATE AND LIENABLE AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION LIENS: DECIDED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS

Posted on by


Most contractors are well aware that construction liens are creatures of statute and must be recorded no later than 90 days after their final furnishing (i.e., last day) of labor, services, or materials. Fla.Stat. §713.08(5). However, what constitutes final furnishing and what amounts should be or should not be included in the lien (“lienable amounts”) are factors that should require the assistance of an attorney as they are not as clear cut under the law as one may prefer. These are critical factors for the preservation of a lien claim that should not be lost or treated in a haphazard manner.

 

Recently, in April 2011, the Second District in Sam Rodgers, Inc. v. Chmura, 2011 WL 156546 (2d DCA 2011), examined these very factors in a dispute over an increase in price to a custom home. In this case, after the slab was poured and the roof dried in, the purchaser did not make the next two construction draw payments. This nonpayment prompted the contractor to stop work mid-construction and timely record a lien for the unpaid work. However, after the lien was recorded, the contractor performed additional work on the unfinished house that it argued was necessary to protect the structure of the house from the weather, vandals, and animals. The contractor then recorded an amended claim of lien more than 90 days after it originally stopped work to include these costs, which also included costs for property taxes and insurance for the property.

 

These facts raise three interesting issues that are considerations whenever a lien is recorded. First, when is the contractor’s final furnishing date—is it the date it originally stopped work due to nonpayment or the date it finished performing the added work to ensure the house was protected from the elements? If the final furnishing date is the date it originally stopped work, then the contractor’s amended lien was untimely filed and moot. Second, can the contractor lien for the added work as well as the costs of taxes and insurance on the property? If it could not, then does this rise up to the level of declaring the lien fraudulent and unenforceable?

 

Final Furnishing Date

 

The appellate court found that the added work extended the final furnishing date since the work was contemplated by the contract and necessary. In reaching this holding, the Court expressed: “The test for whether work constitutes a ‘final furnishing’ is whether the work was done in good faith, within a reasonable time, pursuant to the terms of the contract, and whether it was necessary to a finished job.” Sam Rodgers, Inc. at *4. With that being said, the court confirmed that repair work, warranty work, corrective or punchlist work, or work incidental to a completed contract do not extend the final furnishing date. Id. Because the added work extended the final furnishing date, the amended lien was timely recorded.

 

Whether the work was done in good faith, within a reasonable time, pursuant to the terms of the contract, and necessary to a finished job are all factors that are analyzed on a case-by-case basis. There is no easy brightline standard. Importantly, these are also the same factors to determine when to include change order or extra-contractual work in the lien amount. See In Re American Fabricators, Inc., 197 B.R. 987 (M.D.Fla. 1996).

 

The bottom line is that contractors should err on the side of being conservative when determining their final furnishing date. I generally prefer to arrive at that final furnishing date on the last date the contractor was doing base contract work, not change order, punchlist, or warranty-related work, and that there is documentation to support that date, whether a timesheet, daily report, manpower report, or application for payment.

 

In many situations, the final furnishing date can be readily determined and supported. In other circumstances, in requires more thought and strategy, such as this case where the contractor stopped work and then restarted work to preserve the property, or when the contractor is performing disputed change order work.

 

What Amounts to Include in the Lien (“Lienable Amounts”)

 

The appellate court held that the added work was properly included in the lien as it was done within the scope of the contract; however, the costs incurred for taxes and insurance were not properly included because they were either not required by the construction contract or related to maintenance and not the improvement of the property. See Parc Cent. Aventura E. Condo. V. Victoria Grp. Services, LLC, 54 So.3d 532 (3d DCA 2011) (cleaning and maintenance services were not lienable because purpose of Florida’s Lien Law is to protect those that have provided labor, services, or materials done for the improvement or permanent benefit of the property.)

 

What to include or exclude in the lien amount is a hot topic and important because a defense that an owner of the liened property will raise is that the lien is a fraudulent lienand, therefore, should be deemed unenforceable. A fraudulent lien is essentially one filed in bad faith. It is a lien that is willfully exaggerated, willfully includes amounts for work not performed, or was prepared with gross negligence. See Fla. Stat. 713.31(2).

 

What specific amounts or items that render the entire lien fraudulent and unenforceable are really decided on a case-by-case basis. The appellate court in this case found the taxes and insurance were minor items that were not included in bad faith. However, it is important to understand and know what amounts are being included in the lien. Similar to the final furnishing date, I always err on the side of being conservative and want to know the categories of items being included in the lien, specifically if the items do not fall under base contract work. Just because an item or cost is excluded in the lien amount does not mean there isn’t another legal theory or avenue to pursue to recover those costs.

 

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.