[CLC-Discussion] Unlicensed Contracting Liability

Tue Sep 16 07:28:56 PDT 2014

The Construction Industry Licensing Board treats such things as contracting
beyond the scope of the license (see attached contractor fine schedule under
the FAC) and not unlicensed contracting, so I would think it would be
difficult to argue that performing work beyond the scope of a license was
unlicensed contracting.  You should, however, file a complaint with DBPR.

Chuck

Charles B. Hernicz, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar           
Hernicz Legal Services, P.L.
15854 Bent Creek Road 
Wellington, FL 33414 
Telephone: (561) 753-7511 
Facsimile: (561) 753-7082 
Chernicz at HerniczLegal.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 9:23 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

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/20140916/9d8e802f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20140916/9d8e802f/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 61G4-17.001-Contractor Fines.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 76800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20140916/9d8e802f/61G4-17.001-ContractorFines.doc>