[CLC-Discussion] Discussion item

[Bruce Partington]

Not necessarily.  You could sue a GC for a code violation of a
subcontractor since the GC is legally responsible for the work meeting
code.  This would particularly be true if the code violation is by a sub
in an unlicensed trade because they couldn't be sued under 553.84 anyway
(there are a couple of cases on that issue out there but I don't recall
the names).  In that event, I think the GC could assert a common law
indemnity claim against the sub.  Might be tougher if the sub is in a
licensed trade.  

 

 

Bruce D. Partington

Clark Partington

bpartington at cphlaw.com <mailto:bpartington at cphlaw.com> 

Direct: 850-432-1399

Fax: 850-432-7340

*Board Certified in Construction Law

 

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are private
communication sent by the law firm of Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond &
Stackhouse, and may contain confidential, legally privileged information
meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and
delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.

 

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Timothy Moorhead
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:00 AM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Discussion item

 

Good Morning CLC, 

 

 I am looking for the collective wisdom of the group.  If you have time,
send me your thoughts.

Scenario:

P sues D for breach of the building code under the statute, 553.84,
claiming that D breached the code and that D knew or should have known
of the breach. D files third party claim against 3RD for common law
indemnity.

Can the common law indemnity action stand?

Since the statute requires the Plaintff to Sue the person or entity who
committed the violation, my thought is that Plaintiff's proof of the
action against Defendant necessarily disproves Defendant's action
against 3rd party defendant as Defendant is proven to have fault. (See
the Mendez Garcia case for similar result, no common law indemnity for
negligence.)

Am I missing something?

 

Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.
 
Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.

505 Maitland Avenue

Suite 1000

Altamonte Springs, FL 32701

(407) 425-0234

(407) 425-0260 (fax)

Board Certified in Construction Law

tmoorhead at wfmblaw.com

www.wfmblaw.com

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments
accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the
sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The
information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any
unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have
received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender
by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.

 

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:  To ensure compliance with recently enacted
U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless
otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or
this firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or
avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law.
Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax
advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor
intended by the sender or this firm for the purpose of promoting,
marketing, or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment
plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer should seek
advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent
tax advisor.

 

Replies Filtered:  Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or
other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for
"spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply
or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e.,
potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching
us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply
or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the
same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending
communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive
by means other than e-mail.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20130820/4ac9cbec/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4500 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20130820/4ac9cbec/image001.jpg>