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

Tue May 23 03:55:46 PDT 2023

Additional comments are welcome, but I wanted to thank you all for taking the time to contribute to the discussion.

Your thoughts are appreciated and I will keep the CLC posted as to the eventual resolution.

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

[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.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:46 PM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

The case you cited below may also be distinguishable as it held that the GC was responsible for “its” subcontractors.  A contractor in direct privity is not a subcontractor to the GC.

[cid:image002.png at 01D98D43.98B5D940]

Andrew J Foti

100 N.E. 3rd Ave
Suite 280

Ft.Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel: 954-522-3636

Direct: 954-331-2512

AJF at katzbarron.com<mailto:AJF at katzbarron.com>

www.katzbarron.com<http://www.katzbarron.com>

This email may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender above by telephone (collect call if necessary) and delete the email from your system.To comply with the requirements of Circular 230, which provides regulations governing certain conduct of U.S. tax lawyers giving written advice with respect to U.S. tax matters, please be aware that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used and cannot be used by you or any other person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

[cid:image003.png at 01D98D43.98B5D940]
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: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:31 PM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] GC Permit vs Owner Subs and liability

Under your fact pattern, whereby GC did not authorize Owner’s other Contractor(s) to perform work under GC’ permit, I think there is a strong argument to be made that GC is not liable for the defective work of Owners other contractors.

Moreover, an argument could be made that Owner is liable to GC for the cost, reasonable profit and delay damages to the extent, if any, that the building official, etc. requires GC to perform additional work to the close out the GC’ master permit, etc., as a result of the defective work of Owner’s other contractors.

The timing of GC’ actual knowledge of the other contractors Work may also be relevant.

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator

Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Coral Gables, FL 33134<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500<tel:(305)%20444-1500>
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327<tel:(305)%20675-3327>
Email: rek at reklawfirm.com<mailto:rekesq at gmail.com>
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info<http://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info>

[http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/E9FCC9C6B2384C36852574FA00690DDC/$FILE/ConstructionLaw.jpg?OpenElement]

On May 19, 2023, at 3:16 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 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

<image001.jpg>

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>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230523/5b8321f9/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/20230523/5b8321f9/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4525 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230523/5b8321f9/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3996 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20230523/5b8321f9/image003-0001.png>