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

[RPPTL CLC-Discussion]

Tough question.  If the GC's had a clause in it disclaiming all
liability for work done by others at direction or contract with the owner
the GC should not be liable.  However, if the work performed by others had
to be done before the GC could do its part of the work, the GC may have had
a duty to ensure work by others  that is going to be covered up or become
part of the final product is done correctly.  In those cases, a decent
argument could be made that the GC failed to properly inspect the work of
others and should not have performed its own work on top of defective work.

This sounds like an interesting case.

Ed




*Edward J. Kinberg*
*Attorney* | *Stewart Law CS, LLC.*
1033 Florida Avenue South, Suite B Rockledge, Florida 32955
321 541-6845 a: e, FL 32955


Review by anyone other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may
be unlawful. You must delete this message and any copy of it (in any form)
without disclosing it if you believe this message has been sent to you in
error. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately
notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to
desirestewart at stewartlawcs.com or by telephone at (321)541-6845.



On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 3:20 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <
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.
>       1. Subcontractors merely fill out and submit a Subcontractor Job
>       Card, which references the GC’s permit #.
>       2. 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 under the
> general contractors permit?  Case law is welcome.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Paul J. Kelly
>
> Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
>
> 2959 First Avenue North
>
> St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
>
>
>
> [image: 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
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230521/99398141/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 192000 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230521/99398141/image001-0001.jpg>