<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Paul,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>This is the perfect example of what I am
talking about. The column, let’s say is one of 500, finished while
the GC’s superintendent was looking extinguishing some other fire.
The GC knows nothing of the event, but knows it would be a code
violation. The sub knows of the event and knows it is a code
violation. The statute allows the damaged party to sue “the person
or entity who committed the violation”. So, individual liability of
the bad actor and potentially his employer. They obviously “committed”
the violation. But the unknowing GC, although liable by contract for the
breach, had nothing to do with commission of the bad act. The statute
provides relief against the malfeasant party. Under damaged party may
have other relief against the GC by warranty or contract, but I just don’t
see it under this statute, because the GC did not “commit the violation”.
He might be liable for the violation itself, but he did not “commit”
the violation.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So, back to my original issue, which is
quite the opposite scenario of what is discussed above, if the Plaintiff is to
prove that the GC committed the violation and is therefore liable under 553,
then the logic to me would be that a third party defendant can not be liable to
the GC in common law indemnity, because in order to be liable to the Plaintiff,
the Defendant must have fault (committed the violation) and common law
indemnity would require the defendant to be “wholly without fault.”
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>My original question was about the logic
and common law indemnity and less about the proofs associated with the
inspections.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Again, thank you all for your input.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.<br>
<img width=190 height=61 id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:image001.jpg@01CE9E4F.00BFFC30"><br>
Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><U1:STREET u2:st="on"><U1:ADDRESS u2:st="on"><st1:Street
w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>505 Maitland Avenue</span></font></st1:address></st1:Street><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal></U1:ADDRESS></U1:STREET><U1:PLACE u2:st="on"><U1:CITY u2:st="on"><st1:address
w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on"><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Suite</span></font></st1:Street><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'> 1000</span></font></st1:address><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Altamonte
Springs</span></font></st1:City><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'>, <U1:STATE u2:st="on"><st1:State
w:st="on">FL</U1:STATE></st1:State> <U1:POSTALCODE u2:st="on"><st1:PostalCode
w:st="on">32701</U1:POSTALCODE></st1:PostalCode></span></font></st1:place><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'></U1:CITY></U1:PLACE>(407) 425-0234<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>(407) 425-0260 (fax)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Board Certified in Construction Law<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>www.wfmblaw.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;color:navy'>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail
transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential
information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client
privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized
interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this
transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and
then destroy all copies of the transmission.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;color:navy'>IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure
compliance with recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we
hereby advise you that, unless otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax
advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by
the sender or this firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading
or avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore,
unless otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in
this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this
firm for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or
other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer
should seek advice on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances from an
independent tax advisor.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;color:navy'>Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply
to this e-mail communication or other e-mail communication to us will be
electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That
filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail communications to us
being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed
in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your
reply or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same
in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to
us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than
e-mail.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Paul J Kelly
[mailto:pkelly@paulkellypa.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, August 20, 2013
6:01 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Kurian, Sanjay;
'fred.dudley@hklaw.com'; Timothy Moorhead<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b>
clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [CLC-Discussion]
Discussion item</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Here is my two cents as to codes and latent defects-as a former County
building inspector I personally witnessed many situations that should have been
code violations but we're intentionally hidden-for example structural columns
that should have been filled with concrete but instead were filled with sand
except for the top for inches where the hurricane straps were installed to make
it appear as though the column would pass inspection. Whether defect or
fraud-this would have passed inspection and would have been latent(don't ask
how I found out as the inspector to the sand in place of the concrete) Paul J
Kelly <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color="#575757" face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#575757'>Sent from my Sprint phone<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: "Kurian, Sanjay" <SKurian@becker-poliakoff.com> <br>
Date: 08/20/2013 5:04 PM (GMT-05:00) <br>
To: "'fred.dudley@hklaw.com'"
<fred.dudley@hklaw.com>,tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com <br>
Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <br>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Discussion item <br>
<br>
<br>
Disagree. What occurs with inspections, or plans review, or anything else the
permit fees are supposed to pay for, on the ground are different than in
theory.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sanjay Kurian<br>
Attorney at Law<br>
Board Certified Construction Attorney<br>
Six Mile Corporate Park<br>
<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">12140 Carissa Commerce Court</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
<st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">Suite</st1:Street> 200</st1:address><br>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Fort Myers</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">FL</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">33966</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
239.433.7707 Phone<br>
239.433.5933 Fax<br>
<br>
<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">999 Vanderbilt Beach Road</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
<st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">Suite</st1:Street> 501</st1:address><br>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Naples</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">FL</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">34108</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
<br>
SKurian@becker-poliakoff.com<br>
www.becker-poliakoff.com<br>
www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName
w:st="on">Becker & Poliakoff</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Client</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceName w:st="on">CARE</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Center</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
is available for questions, concerns and suggestions. Please contact us at
954.364.6090 or via email at CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please visit our CALL (Community Association Leadership Lobby) website at
http://www.callbp.com for all of the latest information impacting your
community association. You must be a current client to access this site.
Please contact CALL@becker-poliakoff.com if you do not know your community's
password to log on to the site.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley@hklaw.com<br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:14 PM<br>
To: tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<br>
Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<br>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Discussion item<br>
<br>
Just for thought: I don't believe a latent defect can constitute a code
violation since code compliance is determined by inspections at every level
whereas defects result from faulty material or poor workmanship.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:20 PM, "Timothy Moorhead"
<tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
> We are pretty far off the original question, which dealt with common law
indemnity. I agree, if the Plaintiff proves that the Contractor knew or
should have known, then he is liable and there can be no common law indemnity
from the 3rd party because the defendant is not "wholly without
fault".<br>
><br>
> But to answer your question, and maybe there is a case I am not aware of,
but it would seem that the GC would need to know of the occurrence and then you
would charge him with knowledge of the code. But if he does not know of
the particular code breach, say a latent defect manifesting itself years later,
then he certainly didn't know of the violation back at the relevant time.
He knows NOW that the defect is a violation, but he didn't know THEN that the
defect was an issue. The point of the exclusion in the statute ought to
have been to keep the malfeasant GC on the hook although he by hook or by crook
obtained a certificate of occupancy.<br>
><br>
> But that's a case for another day.<br>
><br>
> Thank you all for your invaluable insight into this issue.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.<br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">505 Maitland Avenue</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
> Suite 1000<br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Altamonte Springs</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">FL</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">32701</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
> (407) 425-0234<br>
> (407) 425-0260 (fax)<br>
> Board Certified in Construction Law<br>
> tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<br>
> www.wfmblaw.com<br>
><br>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments
accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender
which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is
intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this
transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error,
please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies
of the transmission.<br>
><br>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted
U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless
otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm
for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax
penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless
otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm
for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other
entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer
should seek advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an
independent tax advisor.<br>
><br>
> Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or
other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for
"spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result
in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e.,
potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For
that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other
e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely
manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are
particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: fred.dudley@hklaw.com [mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com]<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:10 PM<br>
> To: Timothy Moorhead<br>
> Cc: shsakwa@arnstein.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Discussion item<br>
><br>
> Excellent question but how could a licensed contractor (who had to pass a
test regarding the building code) NOT "should have known?"<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 1:10 PM, "Timothy Moorhead" <tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<mailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Then how would you deal with the "knew or should have known element,
assuming it passed inspection?<br>
><br>
> Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.<br>
> <image001.jpg><br>
> Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.<br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">505 Maitland Avenue</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
> Suite 1000<br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Altamonte Springs</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">FL</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">32701</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
> (407) 425-0234<br>
> (407) 425-0260 (fax)<br>
> Board Certified in Construction Law<br>
> tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<mailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com><br>
> www.wfmblaw.com<http://www.wfmblaw.com><br>
><br>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments
accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender
which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is
intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this
transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error,
please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies
of the transmission.<br>
><br>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted
U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless
otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm
for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax
penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless
otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm
for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other
entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer
should seek advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an
independent tax advisor.<br>
><br>
> Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or
other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for
"spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result
in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially
not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that
reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail
communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner.
Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are
particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: Sakwa, Stuart H. [mailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com]<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:58 AM<br>
> To: Timothy Moorhead;
clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org><br>
> Subject: RE: [CLC-Discussion] Discussion item<br>
><br>
> You could have a case where D installed the work in accordance with the
plans and specifications, but the design was not in accordance with the
code. D may be liable to P, but would then have a common law indemnity
claim against the A/E for the improper design.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Stuart H Sakwa<br>
> Attorney at Law<br>
> ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP<br>
> www.arnstein.com<http://www.arnstein.com><br>
><br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">515 North Flagler Drive</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
> Sixth Floor<br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">West Palm Beach</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">Florida</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">33401-4323</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
> Phone: 561.650.8484<br>
> <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Mobile</st1:place></st1:City>:
954.261.9598<br>
> Fax: 561.802.3082<br>
> shsakwa@arnstein.com<mailto:shsakwa@arnstein.com><br>
> <image005.gif><http://legalnews.arnstein.com/>
<image006.jpg><http://legalnews.arnstein.com/><br>
> Serving Clients for 120 Years<br>
> Offices in <st1:State w:st="on">Illinois</st1:State>, <st1:State w:st="on">Florida</st1:State>,
and <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wisconsin</st1:place></st1:State><br>
> From:
clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Timothy
Moorhead<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:00 AM<br>
> To:
clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org><br>
> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Discussion item<br>
><br>
> Good Morning CLC,<br>
><br>
> I am looking for the collective wisdom of the group. If you have
time, send me your thoughts.<br>
> Scenario:<br>
> P sues D for breach of the building code under the statute, 553.84,
claiming that D breached the code and that D knew or should have known of the
breach. D files third party claim against 3RD for common law indemnity.<br>
> Can the common law indemnity action stand?<br>
> Since the statute requires the Plaintff to Sue the person or entity who
committed the violation, my thought is that Plaintiff's proof of the action
against Defendant necessarily disproves Defendant's action against 3rd party
defendant as Defendant is proven to have fault. (See the Mendez Garcia case for
similar result, no common law indemnity for negligence.)<br>
> Am I missing something?<br>
><br>
> Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.<br>
> <image007.jpg><br>
> Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.<br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">505 Maitland Avenue</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
> Suite 1000<br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Altamonte Springs</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">FL</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">32701</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
> (407) 425-0234<br>
> (407) 425-0260 (fax)<br>
> Board Certified in Construction Law<br>
> tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<mailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com><br>
> www.wfmblaw.com<http://www.wfmblaw.com><br>
><br>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments
accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender
which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is
intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this
transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error,
please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies
of the transmission.<br>
><br>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted
U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless
otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm
for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax
penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless
otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm
for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other
entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer
should seek advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an
independent tax advisor.<br>
><br>
> Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or
other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for
"spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result
in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e.,
potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For
that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail
communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner.
Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are
particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged
information.<br>
> If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify<br>
> the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.<br>
><br>
> Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax<br>
> advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any<br>
> attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot<br>
> be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax
penalties<br>
> that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S.
Federal<br>
> taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending<br>
> to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CLC-Discussion mailing list<br>
>
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org><br>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion<br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> ****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS
COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND
& KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I)
AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II)
PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER
HEREIN.****<br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP
("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s)
to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and
do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of
H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it
contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to
H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly
received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you
should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the
attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CLC-Discussion mailing list<br>
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<br>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CLC-Discussion mailing list<br>
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<br>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>