QUICK NOTE: OCTOBER 1, 2023 CHANGES TO FLORIDA’S CONSTRUCTION STATUTES

Posted on October 22, 2023October 22, 2023 by David Adelstein

Effective October 1, 2023, there were changes to Florida’s statutory scheme dealing with construction projects. This includes Florida’s Lien Law. A copy of these changes can be found below which identify additions in blue and deletions with strikethroughs. No different than before, if you have questions or concerns as to your statutory rights on a construction project, do the prudent thing, consult a construction lawyer. A construction lawyer can help you understand changes to the applicable statutory scheme or how the statutory scheme pertains to your rights. This is important because you want to make sure you understand statutory changes that apply to your work and rights.

A noteworthy change, bolded in blue below, is that there is now a basis to lien for a contractor performing construction management services “which include scheduling and coordinating construction and preconstruction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services”:

Fla. Stat. s. 713.01 (8) “Contractor” means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with the owner of real property for improving it, or who takes over from a contractor as so defined the entire remaining work under such contract. The term “contractor” includes an architect, landscape architect, or engineer who improves real property pursuant to a design- build contract authorized by s. 489.103(16). The term also includes a licensed general contractor or building contractor, as those terms are defined in s. 489.105(3)(a) and (b), respectively, who provides construction management services, which include scheduling and coordinating preconstruction and construction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services, which include schedule control, cost control, and coordinating the provision or procurement of planning, design, and construction for the construction project.

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

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.

NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-AGENT

Posted on March 9, 2018March 9, 2018 by Edward Garber

Can a construction manager-agent / owner’s representative hired directly by the owner be liable to the general contractor in negligence? An argument likely posited by many general contractors on projects gone awry where there is a separate construction manager. Well, here is an interesting case out of Louisiana that supports a negligence claim against a construction manager-agent.

In Lathan Company, Inc. v. State, Department of Education, Recovery School District, 2017 WL 6032333 (La.App. 1^st Cir. 2017), a general contractor entered into a contract with a public owner to renovate a school. The public owner hired a separate construction manager (as the owner’s agent) for the project. The general contractor claimed that the construction manager was negligent through its: unreasonable refusal to approve payment applications; delayed responses to submittals and questions; refusal to recommend substantial completion; refusal to properly manage construction oversight; and its interference with the progress of the project. The contractor claimed, in particular, that given the scope of the construction manager’s supervisory and management responsibilities for the project, the construction manager owed a duty to exercise its responsibilities in a professional manner (akin to a professional negligence claim). These factual assertions are not unusual facts asserted by a general contractor on a problematic project with a separate construction manager / owner’s representative.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the construction manager on the negligence claim. But, the appellate court reversed finding that the construction manager did owe a duty to the general contractor:

Accordingly, after careful review of the record herein, we find that although Jacobs [construction manager] was not in direct contractual privity with Lathan [contractor], Jacobs must be deemed and held to know that its services were not only for the protection or interests of the owner but also third parties, including, specifically, Lathan, who was acting as the general contractor on the project. As outlined above, it was foreseeable and to a degree certain that Lathan would suffer economic harm if Jacobs failed to perform, or negligently performed, many of its professional duties. Moreover, as outlined above, there is a close connection between Jacobs’s alleged failure to act according to industry standards, and the alleged economic harm suffered by Lathan.

***

Thus, after carefully considering the record herein, and applying the balancing test enunciated in the jurisprudence noted above, we are unable to find any reason why the courts’ rationale in such prior jurisprudence, extending the liability of architects and engineers, should not likewise apply to a project management professional, under the facts of this case.

Lathan Company, supra, at *13-14 (internal citations omitted).

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

Posted on August 14, 2011November 8, 2024 by Edward Garber

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.