[CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed Contracting Liability

[Fred Dudley]

While I obviously can't speak for CILB, from my experience in such matters I suspect they would treat this as "practicing beyond the scope of license," rather than ULP. Of course, I'm not sure a CBC can't remove soffit and fascia, but I believe the drip cap itself IS part of the roofing (which a CBC can't work on, unless it's shingles on a NEW building or addition that the same contractor constructed) and that the fascia may not be removable with removal of the drip cap as well).

Fred R. Dudley, Partner
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L.
SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301
3522 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Cell: (850) 294-3471
Direct: (850)692-6368
dudley at mylicenselaw.com


From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Sean A. Mickley
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 9:44 AM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed Contracting Liability

All,

I have a case where a Certified Building Contractor (CBC) was hired to remove old siding on 8 condominium buildings and replace it with hardi plank siding. The CBC is not a registered or certified roofing contractor and it did not subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor to perform roofing work. As a part of the CBC's scope of work, it was required to remove the soffit, fascia and drip edges on all buildings in order to remove and install siding. As I understand it, drip edges are a waterproofing component of the roofing system and require a licensed roofing contractor to perform removal and install of drip edges and adhering shingles to the drip edge. After the project was complete, the condominium buildings began to have severe leaks at the rakes and eaves where the drip edges were removed and replaced. Through an investigation it was found that the siding contractor failed to adhere the shingles to the drip edges leaving the roofing system susceptible to wind driven rain and roof leaks.

My question is: under 768.0425, Fla. Stat., any contractor (as that term is defined in 489) that performs work and was unlicensed at the time of performing said work is liable for triple damages and attorney fees and costs. Does this mean that even though a CBC is licensed that the work performed on the drip edges, rakes and eaves constituted unlicensed contracting because it did not have a roof contractor's license?

I don't want to amend my complaint to allege unlicensed contracting liability and serve discovery concerning same without checking with the great legal minds on this listserv.

Any input would be great!


[Description: newlogo]

Sean A. Mickley, Esq.


Gould Cooksey Fennell

979 Beachland Boulevard

Vero Beach, FL 32963

Telephone  772-231-1100      Fax 772-231-2020

smickley at gouldcooksey.com<mailto:smickley at gouldcooksey.com>

The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.


Circular 230 Disclosure: In compliance with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20140916/dc5ca9e9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42008 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20140916/dc5ca9e9/image001.jpg>