[CLC-Discussion] Recommendation for Plumber

Fri Dec 28 07:18:19 PST 2012

I have a client in need of replacing the sanitary drain lines throughout her home. She is considering Arko Plumbing Corp who is requiring the client to use Aqua Cap Inc. for "water treatment/mitigation".  Does anyone have experience with these companies and/or can recommend other companies operating in Miami-Dade, please let me know. 

Regards to everyone and happy new year. 

Tracye 

Tracye K. Solove, Attorney at Law

Certified Civil Circuit Mediator

Tracye at solovelawfirm.com <x-msg://692/Tracye@solovelawfirm.com> 

Kendallwood Office Park One

12002 Southwest 128th Court

Suite 201

Miami, Florida  33186

Phone: (305) 612-0800

Facsimile: (305) 612-0801

http://www.solovelawfirm.com <http://www.solovelawfirm.com/> 

Providing Statewide Legal Services in the areas of Commercial Collections and Recovery, Creditors' Rights, Commercial Landlord/Tenant and Real Estate Foreclosures

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If this notification is received by anyone other than the intended recipient(s), the recipient(s) should immediately notify the undersigned by E-MAIL and by telephone and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) except with the express written consent of the sender. Thank you. 

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Charles B. Hernicz, Esq
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 7:01 PM
To: 'Justin Zinzow'; 'Jason L Molder'; 'John Trawick'
Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity required?

The statute does answer the question.  §558.001 states the legislative purpose of chapter 558 is to provide for "[an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism in certain construction defect matters [emphasis added].  

The scenario described below is not an issue of "construction defect," which is defined in §558.002 (5) as "a deficiency in, or a deficiency arising out of, the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, observation of construction, or construction, repair, alteration, or remodeling of real property."  What is described below is classic third party damage that would be covered by the contractor's GL policy.  That's the good news.  Construction defects are not, of course, covered by the contractor's general liability insurance policy, but negligent damage to third-party property is.  

Chuck

Charles B. Hernicz, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar
Hernicz Legal Services, P.L.
15854 Bent Creek Road 
Wellington, FL 33414 
Telephone: (561) 753-7511 
Facsimile: (561) 753-7082 
Chernicz at HerniczLegal.com <x-msg://692/Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com> 

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Justin Zinzow
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 5:03 PM
To: Jason L Molder; John Trawick
Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity required?

Counselors, I made an identical inquiry a month or two ago.  I received two replies with differing opinions but no one had any particular analysis they set forth because, I assume, the statute and definitions really do not answer the question.  This may require review of legislative history as I do not believe the policy behind 558 is or should be to prohibit property damage claims until 558 is complied with.  

Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
AV Rated Board Certified
Construction Specialist

(727) 787-3121
Website | Bio

35111 U.S. Highway 19 N. ±  Suite 302 ± Palm Harbor, FL 34684 ± Fax (727) 787-3231

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender.  Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.

________________________________

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jason L Molder
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:29 PM
To: John Trawick
Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity required?

Wouldn't this be a property damage claim as opposed to a construction defect claim?  In such a case, 558 would not apply.  However, if the townhomes share a single roof and the association contracted for the work, possibly there might be 558 applicability here.  Just a thought.  I could be wrong. 

Jason L. Molder | Of Counsel | BENSON, MUCCI & WEISS, PL

5561 N. University Dr., Suite 102

Coral Springs, Florida 33067

Phone 954.323.1023 | Fax 954.323.1013

jason at bmwlawyers.net | www.bmwlawyers.net <http://www.bmwlawyers.net/> 

Note: This email transmission may contain confidential and/or privileged information, and is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, printing, storing, copying, or distribution of this transmission is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and do not retain  any electronic or hard copies of this transmission that you may have.

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to United States Treasury Department Circular 230, please be advised that, unless expressly stated otherwise in writing, this communication (including any and all attachments appended hereto) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax-related penalties, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:24 PM, John Trawick <john at coastalalg.com> wrote:

An owner claims that my client, a roofing contractor, damaged his roof while my client was replacing an adjoining townhouse roof.  The owner claims that as a result of the roof damage, water entered his unit and cause secondary damage to sheetrock, cabinets, etc.  I am inclined to tell the owner that until he complies with 558, there's nothing to discuss.  The definitions in 558 do not appear to limit the application of 558 to only those situations where there is privity between the owner and contractor.  Instead, 558 would indeed appear to govern this situation, notwithstanding the absence of privity.  Am I wrong?

<image002.jpg>

_______________________________________________
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org> 
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 7190 bytes
Desc: image007.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/image007.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 521 bytes
Desc: image008.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/image008.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 437 bytes
Desc: image009.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/image009.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 413 bytes
Desc: image010.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/image010.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 440 bytes
Desc: image011.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/image011.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 422 bytes
Desc: image012.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/image012.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7629 bytes
Desc: image013.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121228/bb188804/image013.jpg>