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

Fri Oct 26 14:20:34 PDT 2012

Yeah, I can see this from either side.  It's not really a negligence/ property damage claim since the owner alleges that my client's construction work on a common roof seam was faulty (flashing detail problem), thereby allowing water into his unit when it rained.  It wasn't like my guy dropped a hammer while he was on the adjacent roof and the hammer broke the owner's window and the broken window allowed water into the unit.  Instead, this was my client's work which is alleged to have been defective and which caused damage to property--just like a typical construction defect claim.  The claim that the owner is making actually appears to fit squarely within the definition section of 558.  Again, I can't find anywhere in the statute that limits application to only scenarios where the owner hired the contractor.  However, I don't want to be sitting in a hearing on my MTD and have the judge look at me as say, "558?  Really?  Oh come on, Mr. Trawick..."

[cid:image001.jpg at 01CDB395.D379B440]

From: Justin Zinzow [mailto:JZinzow at Zinzowlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:03 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

[x-msg://692/Zinzow_files/image002.jpg]

[x-msg://692/Zinzow_files/image004.gif][x-msg://692/Zinzow_files/image006.jpg][x-msg://692/Zinzow_files/image008.gif][x-msg://692/Zinzow_files/image010.gif]

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

[cid:image002.jpg at 01CDB395.D379B440]

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/20121026/96df7702/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 60863 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121026/96df7702/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7629 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121026/96df7702/image002.jpg>