[CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity required?

[Jason L Molder]

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

[cid:1E20FF27-07E1-42DD-88F2-FFADA58D5E4F at ststelecom.com]

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<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121026/725b958d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Foundationlogo-small.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7629 bytes
Desc: Foundationlogo-small.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121026/725b958d/Foundationlogo-small.jpg>