[CLC-Discussion] Repeal of Section 627.428

[RPPTL CLC-Discussion]

627.756 Bonds for construction contracts; attorney fees in case of suit. (1) In a suit Section 627.428 applies to suits brought by an owner, a contractor, a subcontractor, a laborer, or a materialman owners, contractors, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract, upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against the surety insurer and in favor of the owner, contractor, subcontractor, laborer, or materialman, the trial court or, in the event of an appeal in which the owner, contractor, subcontractor, laborer, or materialman prevails, the appellate court, shall adjudge or decree against the surety insurer and in favor of the owner, contractor, subcontractor, laborer, or materialman a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had. Owners, contractors, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section.


This is the revised language that was included in the Bill that repealed 627.428.

Sean A. Mickley
Board Certified in Construction Law

WhiteBird, PLLC

1701 Highway A1A, Suite 102
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
www.whitebirdlaw.com<http://www.whitebirdlaw.com/>

p. 772.610.5580   |   f. 772.610.5665


This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 10:25 AM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Repeal of Section 627.428


CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Section 627.756 was amended to add back the right to recover fees which used to be in Section 627.428 as far as claims against a surety.  As far as the other insurance issues raised below, I cannot comment.

Helen H. Albee
Board Certified in Construction Law
Tritt & Associates, P.A.
707 Peninsular Place
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Phone (904) 354-5200
Helen.albee at atritt.com
www.atritt.com<http://www.atritt.com/>



From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 10:12 AM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Repeal of Section 627.428

So how did this repeal of 627.428 fly under the radar?... I don't recall any discussion on this in our meeting or in Orlando in March... appears to affect performance bond claims, all first party coverage claims demanding liability coverage or defense from carriers, etc... I think we need someone knowledgeable to inform our members of the effect of this repeal on construction claims and practices...

Michael J. Yates, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law
5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 602
Miami FL 33143
Office 305.666.8100
Fax      305.666.8106


This electronic mail message contains CONFIDENTIAL information which is (a) ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, WORK PRODUCT, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein. If you are not an Addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an Addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written by the Law Offices of Michael J. Yates P.L,  to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230331/fc644341/attachment.html>