[CLC-Discussion] Discussion item

Tue Aug 20 11:02:47 PDT 2013

Licensed or not if the sub fails to meet code the contractor has failed to meet ced!

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:47 AM, "Bruce Partington" <bparting at cphlaw.com<mailto:bparting at cphlaw.com>> wrote:

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> [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<mailto: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.
<image001.jpg>
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<mailto:tmoorhead at wfmblaw.com>
www.wfmblaw.com<http://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.

_______________________________________________
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

________________________________

****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.****

________________________________

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
-------------- 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/a8ccfee5/image001.jpg>