[CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Thu Aug 17 07:17:06 PDT 2023

And was the scope of the Owner’s separate contractors (since they’re not really subs) within the GC’s original contracted and permitted scope of work? Or was their work excluded from it explicitly?

Bruce Partington | Shareholder
Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law
bpartington at clarkpartington.com<mailto:bpartington at clarkpartington.com> | (850) 432-1399

CLARK PARTINGTON
Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32502
clarkpartington.com<https://clarkpartington.com/>

[cid:logo4_d1062d3d-30e4-47df-99af-a59488723ed9.jpg]<http://clarkpartington.com/>

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:11 AM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Good Morning,

Few questions:
Did the GC know that subs were pulling permits under their permit?
If so, are there any documented notices directly from the GC directing the owner to cease such behavior?
Are there any notices from the GC directing the subcontractors to refrain from performing any work under the GC license?

I believe some answers to these questions would help with understanding the ‘course of conduct’, and possibly eliminate most of the gray areas with the owner’s and subcontractor’s expectations.

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 3:20 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>> wrote:
CLC, this issue seems familiar, but I can’t locate an email thread.

Does anyone have that thread, or any thoughts on the issue below? Thank you.

Facts:

  1.  Owner engages General Contractor (“GC”) for commercial construction project.
  2.  GC obtains the necessary Building Permit.
  3.  Owner independently engages “sub” contractors for certain subcontract work (direct privity between Owner and Owner’s Subs – GC not involved.)
  4.  The municipality in which the project is taking place uses a single permit system.

     *   Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
     *   All work performed by subcontractors takes place under that GC’s permit #.
GC did not authorize those subcontractors engaged by the Owner to work under his permit, but, given the municipality’s single permit system, they ended up under his permit by default. (No grant of authority or sign off by the GC is required.)

  1.  Owner’s direct privity contractors produce deficient work within their scope.
  2.  Owner now claims that GC is responsible for the deficient work of Owner’s Contractors because GC obtained building permit.

Question:

Is a general contractor liable for deficiencies in, or remediation of, the work of subcontractors who were engaged by and in direct privity with the property owner, if those subcontractors obtained permitting <https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g> under the general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.

Thank you.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North<https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g>
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713<https://link.edgepilot.com/s/584bcf4f/WBAE3Cz-_0yZ7_P-JvaXEQ?u=https://www.google.com/maps/search/2959%2BFirst%2BAvenue%2BNorth%2B%250D%250A%2BSt.%2BPetersburg%2C%2BFlorida%2B33713?entry=gmail%26source=g>

[Board Certified Construction Logo]

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

_______________________________________________
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/33e1c195/n_jAkeZq0E2V5OsS3WtGkA?u=http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
--
OT Delancy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230817/ac2cf2fa/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 192000 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230817/ac2cf2fa/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo4_d1062d3d-30e4-47df-99af-a59488723ed9.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27207 bytes
Desc: logo4_d1062d3d-30e4-47df-99af-a59488723ed9.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230817/ac2cf2fa/logo4_d1062d3d-30e4-47df-99af-a59488723ed9-0001.jpg>