The Legislature finds it necessary in the interest of the public safety and welfare, to prevent damage to real and personal property, to avert economic injury to the residents of this state, and to regulate persons and companies that hold themselves out to the public as qualified to perform mold-related services.

That is the legislative purpose behind Florida’s new mold-related services law, which takes effect on July 1, 2010.

The new law, codified in Chapter 468 of the Florida Statutes, among other things, provides for the licensing of those performing mold-related services, establishes required insurance coverage, and sets forth a handful of prohibitions pertaining to the provision of mold-related services. The law was initially enacted in 2007, but amended in 2010. The following synopsis of specific areas of the law covers those provisions as amended, where applicable.

Are you a mold assessor? A mold remediator?
In the new law “mold assessment” is defined as “… a process performed by a mold assessor that includes the physical sampling and detailed evaluation of data obtained from a building history and inspection to formulate an initial hypothesis about the origin, identity, location, and extent of amplification of mold growth of greater than 10 square feet.”

“Mold remediation” is defined as “… the removal, cleaning, sanitizing, demolition, or other treatment, including preventive activities, of mold or mold-contaminated matter of greater than 10 square feet that was not purposely grown at that location; however, such removal, cleaning, sanitizing, demolition, or other treatment, including preventive activities, may not be work that requires a license under chapter 489 unless performed by a person who is licensed under that chapter or the work complies with that chapter.”

As you can imagine, a “mold assessor” is “… any person who performs or directly supervises a mold assessment[,]” and a “mold remediator” is “… any person who performs mold remediation.” However, with respect to mold remediators, it is important to note that “[a] mold remediator may not perform any work that requires a license under chapter 489 unless the mold remediator is also licensed under that chapter or complies with that chapter.”

Licensing requirements.
The new law creates the “mold-related services licensing program.” The program, which will be administered by Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation, will contain specific requirements for licensure, including passing an examination, being of good moral character, and satisfying certain education requirements. Both remediators and assessors will be required to have at least a 2-year associate of arts degree or equivalent, with at least 30 semester hours in specific areas, and a minimum of 1 year documented field experience. Those without the 2-year degree can qualify with only a high school degree or equivalent, if they have 4 years of documented field experience in their respective field. The application process will include fingerprinting, and both a state and FBI background check. A person may practice mold assessment or mold remediation through a corporation if they meet all of the requirements; however, corporations will not be allowed to hold a license.

Prohibitions and penalties.
The law includes a list of prohibited conduct, the violations of which carry criminal penalties, including felony charges for certain violations.

With respect to the prohibited conduct, a person violates the statute by:

• Performing (or offering to perform) any mold assessment without the required documented training in water, mold, and respiratory protection (effective July 1, 2011).
• Performing (or offering to perform) any mold assessment without first complying with the statute (effective July 1, 2011).
• Using the following titles without first complying with the statute: “certified mold assessor,” “registered mold assessor,” “licensed mold assessor,” “mold assessor,” “professional mold assessor,” or any combination thereof.
• Performing or offering to perform mold remediation to a structure on which the mold assessor (or the mold assessor’s company) provided a mold assessment within the last 12 months.
• Charging a fee to inspect any property which the assessor (or the assessor’s company) has any financial or transfer interest.
• Accepting or offering any “compensation, inducement, or reward” from/to a mold remediator or mold remediator’s company for business referrals to/from the mold remediator or the mold remediator’s company.
• Agreeing to make an omission to an assessment, or conducting an assessment where the assessment (or payment for the assessment) is contingent on the conclusions of the assessment.

The legislation also includes a separate list of prohibited conduct directly pertaining to mold remediators, “a company that employs a mold remediator, or a company that is controlled by a company that also has a financial interest in a company employing a mold remediator[.]” While the list is generally similar to that outlined above (except, of course, that it applies to remediation as opposed to assessment activities), it does not include any July 1, 2011 grace periods.

And be careful! Violations carry criminal penalties: a first violation is a second degree misdemeanor; a second violation is a first degree misdemeanor; and a third or subsequent violation is a third degree felony.

Required Insurance Coverage
The law requires mold assessors to maintain both general liability and errors and omissions coverage (for both preliminary and post-remediation mold assessment) of at least $1 million. Mold remediators are required to maintain general liability coverage of at least $1 million, “… that includes specific coverage for mold-related claims.”

Summary
As with any new law that impacts your business, become thoroughly familiar with it, and make sure that your business practices, including all of your marketing and signage, are compliant.

Please note: This post is not intended to be a complete analysis of this law. Do not use this post as a replacement for competent legal advice.  This post does not cover all aspects of this law, and should not be relied upon in any real-life situation.

For specific information about how this law impacts you, contact a qualified and licensed Florida attorney.

A brief refresher on Florida’s Chapter 558.

Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes was enacted in 2003 in order to provide the design and construction industry with pre-suit notice and opportunity to cure before a claimant can file a lawsuit for construction defects. Under the statute, before a claimant can file a lawsuit against a developer, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, or design professional alleging a construction defect, the claimant must first provide notice of the alleged defect, along with an opportunity to cure. The statute is highly specific, outlining the periods of time in which the recipient of such a notice has to put others on notice, inspect the alleged construction defect, and provide a response to the claimant. The most recent set of amendments to Chapter 558 took effect on October 1, 2009.

A brief summary of the notice provisions under s. 558.004 that are specific to associations representing more than 20 parcels:

• The written notice of claim under Ch. 558 must be served at least 120 days before filing a lawsuit pertaining to the claim (as opposed to 60 days for all others);
• The person served with the notice of claim is allowed 50 days after service in which to perform a reasonable inspection (as opposed to 30 days for all others);
• The person served with the notice of claim may serve a copy of the notice on each contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or design professional whom it reasonably believes is responsible for each defect specified in the notice (as opposed to 10 days for all others);
• The person who was served with a copy of the notice must furnish a written response to the person who served it within 30 days after such service (as opposed to 15 days for all others);
• The person originally served with the notice by the claimant must furnish the claimant with a written response within 75 days after being served with the notice (as opposed to 45 days for all others).

While Chapter 558 can be a valuable resource for those with construction defect claims, and when used correctly can be an excellent tool in mitigating construction defect litigation, it can also be a minefield for those not familiar with its extensively detailed provisions.

This post is not meant to be a complete analysis of Chapter 558, or the way in which it applies to associations representing more than 20 parcels. For information pertaining to your specific situation, consult a Florida-licensed attorney experienced in handling construction defect matters.

Florida new construction buyers fighting with their developer over who gets to keep the deposit may get some well-needed relief in Court these days, thanks to a recent decision from the Third District Court of Appeals. On October 21, 2009, the Third DCA (with appellate jurisdiction that includes Miami-Dade County) held in Terra-Adi International Bayshore, LLC. v. Kostandinos Georgarious, et. al. that the purchasers were entitled to the immediate release of the amount deposited over 15% of the purchase price of their units, pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement, even before the cases go to trial.

The purchase agreements at issue in Terra-Adi contained language which entitled the purchasers to a refund of any amount deposited over 15% of the unit’s purchase price upon a purchaser-default. After the trial Court ordered that the developer return this amount immediately to purchasers, the developer appealed. Even though purchasers were claiming rescission and breach of the purchase agreements (among other claims), they took the position that the language of the purchase agreements provided that, regardless of the outcome of the litigation, they were entitled to the immediate return of any amount they deposited over 15% of the purchase price. In part, the default provision of the purchase agreements state as follows:

If Buyer defaults after fifteen percent (15%) of the Purchase Price, exclusive of interest, has been paid, Seller will refund to the Buyer any amount which remains from the payments Buyer made after subtracting fifteen percent (15%) of the Purchase Price, exclusive of interest.

This language is one of the acceptable “default provisions” provided by the Federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, commonly known as ILSA. By including this language, the developer essentially obligated itself to return at least that amount to the purchasers, even if they defaulted and the developer prevailed in the litigation. Failure to immediately release those funds, the purchasers successfully argued, amounted to an improper restraint on the use of their own assets.

This is a clear win for new construction buyers involved in litigation with their developers, at least in the Third District. Litigants previously inclined to settle for only a release of this ILSA refund amount (the amount deposited over 15% of the unit’s purchase price) may now find themselves willing to go the distance with developers, since the Court’s ruling in Terra-Adi should mean that they no longer have to wait for the case to end (which could take years) in order to get that amount returned to them. Although the war continues, this battle win goes to the purchasers.

On October 30, 2009, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals held, in Marseilles Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, that a condominium association can sue and recover from a performance bond surety for construction defects arising out of construction of the condominium. In that case, the condominium’s developer was the named owner/obligee under performance bonds issued by the surety for the project. Ultimately, the contractor failed to perform and the developer hired another contractor to complete the condominium. During construction, while disputes were ongoing between the developer and the original contractor, the association was formed. After turnover of the condominium, the developer settled pending litigation with the contractor and the surety, wherein the developer agreed to cancellation of the bonds. The developer was already on notice that the association was claiming construction defects relating to the condominium. The settlement was entered into without the association’s knowledge.

Subsequently, the association filed suit against both the developer and the surety, claiming that the condominium suffered from both incomplete and defective construction. As to the surety, the association sought recovery under the bonds. The surety moved for (and was granted) summary judgment in its favor, claiming that the language of the bonds precluded a claim by anyone other than the developer or its successor. The association appealed.

In reversing the lower Court, the First District held that the association was a successor to the developer under the language of the bonds, and accordingly, had standing to bring an action against the surety under the bonds. Although the bonds did not define the term “successor,” the First District pointed out that “[w]hile the Developer controlled the Association at the time of filing the declaration of condominium and amended declaration of condominium, the Association succeeded to control of the condominium pursuant to section 718.301(4), Florida Statutes.” The Court also stated that:

The end users of the condominium project are the individual unit owners who own their respective units and share ownership in the common elements of the project. … The Association is the legal entity responsible for operating and maintaining the common elements owned by the collective unit owners. … The face of the bonds indicates that they were issued for a condominium project. Thus, when Travelers issued the bonds, it knew that control over and operation and maintenance of the common elements would be vested in the Association.

To make matters worse for the surety, the performance bond, by its terms, expressly incorporated the construction contract between the developer and the contractor. As stated by the Court, this was significant

because the construction contract expressly provides that the warranties in the contract “shall be for the benefit of the Owner, and all unit owners and any owner’s association.” Thus, because paragraph 1 of the bonds obligate the surety “for the performance of the Construction Contract” and paragraph 6.1 obligates the surety “for correction of defective work and completion of the Construction Contract,” the surety’s obligations included the correction of all breaches of warranties for the benefit of the Association.

The Court further stated that

By virtue of the terms of the construction contract and the nature of a condominium development, Travelers had to know that the Developer would not be the owner when the construction was completed and that the condominium would be transferred to the unit owners and the Association.

In holding that the association here was the successor to the developer, the Court rejected the notion that the term “successor” should always be limited to corporate entities “that have become vested with the rights and duties of another entity through amalgamation, consolidation, or other assumption of interest.”

It is important to note the importance of the Court’s ruling in light of the 1985 decision by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals in Beach Point Condominium Ass’n., Inc. v. Beach Point Corp., wherein the Fourth District held that a condominium association was not a third-party beneficiary of a payment and performance bond secured by the contractor in favor of the original developer of the condominium. Here, however, the Court disposed of any such apparent conflict by simply stating that “[b]ecause we hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Association is a successor and may sue on the bonds, it is not necessary to reach the third-party beneficiary issue.”

It’s been about a year since you closed on your brand new Florida condominium unit. You receive a notice from the developer-controlled association that the association is being turned over to the unit owners at an upcoming meeting, and you put your name down as a candidate for the board. You’re elected as President at the meeting and you and your fellow board members, neither with prior experience in this field, are now in control of a several hundred-unit condominium project with approximately 600 unit owners and residents, all looking to you for guidance on how best to manage their property. Luckily for your association and its residents, you hired an independent engineer to inspect your building and provide you with a comprehensive building report.

Florida law provides four years in which to bring an action for construction defects (FS 95.11(3)(c)). For condominium associations, the time runs from the date that the developer turns over control of the association to the unit owners (FS 718.124). If the defect is latent (i.e., not obvious), the time runs from the date on which the association discovered (or should have discovered with the exercise of due diligence) the defect. In any event, however, the action must be commenced within ten years following the developer’s turnover of the condominium to the unit-owners (FS 95.11(3)(c)). After that time, the statute of repose as it’s called, would effectively bar any such actions.

(Note: The limitations periods referenced above do not apply the same to individual purchasers bringing suit for construction defects, even if they are condominium purchasers. In such instances, they would not get the tolling protections afforded to associations by FS 718.124.)

Although a leaking roof is the quintessential example of a non-latent defect (e.g. when water is dripping on your head, you are pretty much on notice of the defect), the patency or latency of other types of defects are not necessarily that easy to determine. If you’re litigating the issue years later, it’s likely too late. Further complicating issues are the statutorily implied warranties that come with all new condominiums in Florida. Indeed, Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes grants purchasers of new condominiums a statutorily implied warranty from the developer, contractor, subcontractors, and material suppliers who furnished labor or materials to the project (FS 718.203). Since the time in which purchasers (or the association) have to make a warranty claim is different from the running of the statute of limitations, there are separate timelines that the association must be aware of (keep in mind that making a claim within a warranty period is completely different from filing suit within the statute of limitations). And since the statutory warranties expire at different times for different building components, keeping track of the relevant deadlines can be daunting, especially to an inexperienced or ill-advised board.

Consider the following scenario:

A unit owner reports leaking into his penthouse unit from the ceiling above. A routine, non-invasive inspection reveals that the leak might be coming from a small void in the roof above. Your property manager calls out the roofer and a minor patch is applied. The leak in the unit stops. Several years later, the building experiences a major leak in another unit. A survey of the roof reveals excessive moisture below the roofing system, and extensive water damage and mold growth in the space between the roof and the penthouse floor’s ceiling. The roofer recommends that remediation work be performed, and then, due to the widespread damage to the roof system, that the roof be completely replaced. With the roof warranty expired, the replacement costs will be staggering, possibly resulting in a large special assessment to each unit owner. You consult an attorney and ultimately bring a claim against the builder for construction defects. The builder defends on the basis that the statute of limitation has expired, since you first knew or had reason to know of the defect years earlier, when the leak first manifested in the other unit.

To help mitigate the possibility of something like this occurring, it is highly recommended that a new unit-owner-controlled board engage the services of a competent licensed Florida engineer to perform a thorough evaluation of its property. Think of it like a physical for the building, and make sure that no stone is left unturned. First, ask around to find the best engineer for the job. Most likely your condominium attorney has worked with engineers before, so he or she may be able to make a recommendation. If not, try and get a recommendation from your property manager or property management company, other condominium or community association board members you may know, or people in the industry that you trust. Once you’ve located and selected an engineer, develop the scope of work for your specific needs.

At a minimum, your engineer should inspect the property and prepare a comprehensive report covering all building components, including (but not limited to):

• architecture
• structure
• building envelope (including stucco and paint)
• windows and doors
• fire protection
• mechanical
• electrical, and
• plumbing.

Since each project is different, your report may need to include other components as well, such as seawalls, docks, common element recreation areas, etc. The report should include an itemized list of both design and construction issues related to the project, and at a minimum, for each:

• the location(s) where the issue appears;
• a detailed description of the issue;
• an explanation as to the nature of the specific criteria used to evaluate the issue;
• recommendations for repair and remediation, and;
• pictures depicting the issue.

Make sure that the contract with your engineer specifies that a report will be provided with this level of detail.

Although in Florida a condominium developer is required to provide the unit-owner-controlled association with a similar report at turnover, there are two important things to remember about this report. First, it only needs to encompass what the statute requires it to, and one could argue that the statute’s coverage is less than that which is provided in a more comprehensive report of the building components. Second, the report is likely being prepared by an engineer selected by, and working for, the developer. Although the report may be 100% accurate and prepared with the utmost of good faith, the single fact that it is being prepared by the developer’s engineer gives me pause in advising a unit-owner-controlled association to trust it without independent verification.

With an independent building report in hand, a new unit-owner-controlled board should be prepared to analyze any issues affecting the design and construction of its building. The association should then be equipped to raise warranty and defect claims as may be necessary, and provide those responsible with specific detailed information relating to the possible defects and deficiencies in their work. Finally, both the report and the relationship that has developed between the association and the engineers should enable the association to better maintain the building for years to come.

« Please note: The foregoing is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not intended to apply to any specific legal situation. You should not rely on any information appearing herein to make any decisions pertaining to any particular legal matter. No legal advice is being given by this material, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this material. »

]]> http://molderlegal.com/content/365/feed 0 http://molderlegal.com/content/367 http://molderlegal.com/content/367#comments Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:00:03 +0000 Jason L. Molder http://molderlegal.com/?p=367 (Originally published on September 12, 2009 at blog.molderlegal.com)

Florida’s 2009 hurricane season is well under way and, for both this and upcoming hurricane seasons, Florida owner’s, contractors, and other construction-industry players should be well aware of the many ways that a construction contract can be made hurricane-ready. From issues dealing with shoring up the project, time delays, cost increases, and more, your construction contract should be your first line of defense (and reference) from the moment a hurricane watch is issued.

One quintessential example of a hurricane-related project delay is the time lost in both preparing for and re-mobilizing after a storm. If your contract doesn’t clearly call out which party is responsible for hurricane time delays, you could easily find yourself in heated litigation over whether the delay was “unforeseeable” or outside the “control” of one party or another. Even in contracts where weather delays are specifically addressed, does the language merely refer to “abnormal” weather events? If so, are hurricane’s really that “abnormal” for South Florida during hurricane season? Answering this question alone can make the difference between whether the event is categorized as an excusable or an inexcusable delay, potentially costing millions to the party on the losing end of the argument. And this is just a small example of the type of issue that can arise when interpreting a construction contract that has not been drafted with hurricanes in mind.

Consider the following issues that may arise when a hurricane watch/warning is issued in your project’s area:

• Who is responsible for coordination of efforts to shore up the site?
  • What steps need to be taken to adequately and securely shore up the site?
  • Do you have a checklist to work from so nothing gets overlooked?
  • Are duties and responsibilities clearly identified across the various parties?
  • Does everyone know who they are supposed to take direction from, what they are supposed to be doing, and when?
• Once the storm has passed, who is responsible for “first-response” assessment of any damage to the site (including documenting any damage)?
  • Is there a streamlined process in place for informing trades as to the status of the site, and calling trades back to the site to resume work and/or participate in cleanup efforts?
• Are all hurricane-related items clearly outlined in your construction contract?

In addition to the above concerns that may arise, consider the following (just a short list, and by no means exhaustive) with respect to how your construction contract deals with hurricanes:

• Who is responsible for time lost due to hurricanes?
  • Is enough time built into the project’s schedule to take into consideration time that might be lost as a result of a hurricane?
• Who is responsible for increased costs resulting from hurricanes?
  • Is compensation for weather-related demobilization, delay, and remobilization permitted by the contract?
  • What about cost escalations resulting from a reduction in available labor and/or materials?
• How does your contract address adverse weather in general?
  • Would a hurricane be classified as an “abnormal” weather event?
• Does your contract take into consideration storms that never reach hurricane strength, such as tropical storms?
• Do all parts of the contract work together (i.e., is there language to guard against inconsistent provisions which might conflict with one another to allow alternate, unintended, interpretations of the contract)?

With some careful drafting, you can attempt to cover all of these bases in the construction contract itself, or in an exhibit attached to it.

While there’s no way to avoid the chaos and uncertainty that a hurricane will invariably bring to your construction project, you can at least attempt to streamline — as best as possible — each step of the way, from hurricane watch through cleanup and remobilization, that you’re likely to encounter during Florida’s hurricane season. •

« Please note: The foregoing is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not intended to apply to any specific legal situation. You should not rely on any information appearing herein to make any decisions pertaining to any particular legal matter. No legal advice is being given by your visit to this site, and no attorney-client relationship is created by your visit to this site. »

Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes was enacted in 2003 in order to provide the design and construction industry with pre-suit notice and opportunity to cure before a claimant can file a lawsuit for construction defects. Under the statute, before a claimant can file a lawsuit against a developer, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, or design professional alleging a construction defect, the claimant must first provide notice of the alleged defect, along with an opportunity to cure. The statute is highly specific, outlining the periods of time in which the recipient of such a notice has to put others on notice, inspect the alleged construction defect, and provide a response to the claimant. The most recent set of amendments to Chapter 558, which amend several provisions of the statute, take effect on October 1, 2009.

Here is an outline of the recent amendments:

• § 558.002
  • § 558.002(4) — The definition of “Completion of a building or improvement” was added to the definitions section, as follows:
    “Completion of a building or improvement” means issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the entire building or improvement, or the equivalent authorization to occupy or use the improvement, issued by the governmental body having jurisdiction and, in jurisdictions where no certificate of occupancy or the equivalent authorization is issued, means substantial completion of construction, finishing, and equipping of the building or improvement according to the plans and specifications.
  • § 558.002(9) (former section 558.002(8) was amended to remove the requirement of using “return receipt requested” when delivering the notice of claim, and to add delivery “with a United States Postal Service record of evidence of delivery or attempted delivery” and “… by hand delivery, or by delivery by any courier with written evidence of delivery.”
• § 558.003
  • § 558.003 was amended to replace the word “abate” with “stay” with reference to actions filed without first complying with requirements of Ch. 558 (a similar change was made in s. 558.004(7), swapping the two terms with respect to a claimant filing an action without first either accepting or rejecting a settlement offer furnished pursuant to the statute). Section 558.003 was further amended to add the following language: “The notice requirement is not intended to interfere with an owner’s ability to complete a project that has not been substantially completed. The notice is not required for a project that has not reached the stage of completion of the building or improvement.” This amendment, presumably, is what necessitated the addition of the definition of “[c]ompletion of a building or improvement” in s. 558.002(4).

• § 558.004
  • § 558.004 was amended to globally change the use of the term “receipt” or any variation thereof with the term “service” (and variations thereof). In reference to downstream 558 notices, the term “forward” (and variations thereof) was replaced with the term “serve” (and variations thereof). Similar changes were made in replacing the terms “notification” and “mailing” with the term “service.”
  • § 558.004(2)(b) now includes “restoration” within the scope of damages contemplated by the destructive testing language of the statute. As a result, the notice outlining the need for destructive testing must now include the anticipated restoration of the property, the time needed for such restoration, and the financial responsibility being offered to cover the costs of such restoration. S. 558.004(2)(g) was added to expressly prohibit lien rights for the destructive testing and/or restoration work, unless such work is contracted for directly by the owner of the property. New s. 558.004(2)(g) provides as follows: “There shall be no construction lien rights under part I of chapter 713 for the destructive testing caused by a person served with notice under subsection (1) or for restoring the area destructively tested to the condition existing prior to testing, except to the extent the owner contracts for the destructive testing or restoration.” In addition, the paragraph immediately following new subparagraph (2)(g) of s. 558.004 includes some grammatical changes pertaining to the claimant’s waiver of any damages that could have been avoided or mitigated had the destructive testing been allowed. The amended language also provides that such destructive testing must be reasonable.
  • § 558.004(3) was amended to expressly provide that “[t]he notice described in this subsection may not be construed as an admission of any kind.” Although I’m sure all construction law practitioners include language in their downstream 558 notices clearly outlining that it shall not be deemed an admission of any kind, it’s good to know that the downstream notice will now be statutorily protected from being construed as one.
  • § 558.004(4) was amended to provide that the person receiving a downstream 558 notice, in addition to providing a response to the person serving it, may also provide a copy of their response to the initial claimant.
  • § 558.004(13) contains grammatical changes.
  • § 558.004(15) contains perhaps the largest single-subparagraph change to Chapter 558, pertaining to the pre-suit exchange of what was formally labeled as “discoverable evidence.” The former language required the exchange of “all available discoverable evidence relating to the construction defects” without necessarily placing a limitation on the items requested. A list of examples was provided, but only by way of illustration, as the former section expressly included the pretext “… including, but not limited to ….” The new section on the other hand is highly specific as to what documents are subject to being requested. They are: “… any design plans, specifications, and as-built plans; any documents detailing the design drawings or specifications; photographs, videos, and expert reports that describe any defect upon which the claim is made; sub-contracts; and purchase orders for the work that is claimed defective or any part of such materials.” The term “such evidence” is replaced with “the requested materials.” Finally, the request must cite to the subsection, include an offer to pay the reasonable costs of reproduction, and be fulfilled within 30 days after service of the written request.

• § 558.005
  • § 558.005, the legislation’s section on contract provisions and its application, was also amended. § 558.005(1) was amended to expressly provide that Chapter 558 is an opt-out statute, and as such, is applicable to any construction defect claim on a completed building or improvement arising out of a contract made after October 1, 2009, “[u]nless a claimant and a potential defendant have agreed in writing to opt out of the requirements of [the] section.”
  • § 558.005(2) and § 558.005(3) are amended and specify the applicable notices required to be contained in construction contracts.
  • Other changes were made regarding the contract provisions and applicability of Chapter 558.

« Please note: The foregoing is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not intended to apply to any specific legal situation. You should not rely on any information appearing herein to make any decisions pertaining to any particular legal matter. No legal advice is being given by your visit to this site, and no attorney-client relationship is created by your visit to this site. »

Welcome to our Florida Construction Law section! This topic thread is intended to cover many issues pertaining to construction law and litigation in Florida, including the following:

• Contract negotiation & drafting
• Construction defect claims (including drywall defect claims)
• Lien & bond claims (including performance and payment bond surety claims)
• Deposit disputes between developers and purchasers of new construction
• Indoor air quality (including mold and asbestos)
• Construction-related litigation & arbitration