[RPPTL-constructionlaw] Looking for a company that willwriteBuilder's Risk in South Florida

Tue May 1 12:38:19 PDT 2012

Thank you everyone for the names. I will pass them on. 

Tracye K. Solove, Attorney at Law

Certified Civil Circuit Mediator

Tracye at solovelawfirm.com

Kendallwood Office Park One

12002 Southwest 128th Court

Suite 201

Miami, Florida  33186

Phone: (305) 612-0800

Facsimile: (305) 612-0801

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

Providing Statewide Legal Services in the areas of Commercial Collections and Recovery, Creditors' Rights, Commercial Landlord/Tenant and Real Estate Foreclosures

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If this notification is received by anyone other than the intended recipient(s), the recipient(s) should immediately notify the undersigned by E-MAIL and by telephone and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) except with the express written consent of the sender. Thank you. 

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lauriesams at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:08 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Cc: David Wiegand
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Looking for a company that willwriteBuilder's Risk in South Florida

Tracye,

Here is the agent I have dealt with to write Builder's Risk: 

David Wiegand

Wells Insurance

Phone 941-232-8728

I cc'd him on this email if you wish to contact him by email.

Laurie B. Sams
Van Winkle & Sams, P.A. 
3859 Bee Ridge Road, Suite 202
Sarasota, FL 34233
(941) 923-1685
fax (941) 923-0174
www.vwslaw.com
Please Note: Our firm only accepts WIRES for closings.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise
be privileged or confidential. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this transmittal in error. In that case, any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is
strictly prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
telephone (941) 923-1685, or e-mail at lauriesams at comcast.net  and immediately delete this message and all of its
attachments.

----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Tracye <mailto:Tracye at solovelawfirm.com>  

	To: RPPTL constructionlaw <mailto:constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org>  

	Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:28 PM

	Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Looking for a company that will writeBuilder's Risk in South Florida

	Can anyone recommend a company that will write Builder’s Risk on a small residential project in south Florida near the intercoastal? 

	Tracye K. Solove, Attorney at Law

	Certified Civil Circuit Mediator

	Tracye at solovelawfirm.com <mailto:Tracye at solovelawfirm.com> 

	Kendallwood Office Park One

	12002 Southwest 128th Court

	Suite 201

	Miami, Florida  33186

	Phone: (305) 612-0800

	Facsimile: (305) 612-0801

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

	Providing Statewide Legal Services in the areas of Commercial Collections and Recovery, Creditors' Rights, Commercial Landlord/Tenant and Real Estate Foreclosures

	This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If this notification is received by anyone other than the intended recipient(s), the recipient(s) should immediately notify the undersigned by E-MAIL and by telephone and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) except with the express written consent of the sender. Thank you. 

	From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Fair
	Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:49 AM
	To: RPPTL constructionlaw
	Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] [RPPTL-constructionlaw QUESTIONBUT LOOKING FOR A VERY SPECIFIC CASE ONLY

	I sued a contractor who had a carpentry license but who performed work beyond the scope of his license.  Among other things, I sued for rescission and replevin and won on summary judgment.  I think, at this point, even if the owner is an active participant in the illegal activity, it’s the contractor who loses.  It’s unfortunate that the penalties are not somehow equally shared when the owner knowingly hires an unlicensed contractor but I believe that is the state of the law.

	I also represented a contractor who performed work beyond the scope of his license but we partially released his lien for the amounts due for the work not covered by his license.  The judge still ruled against us but, if my client had never charged for that work (as opposed to later deciding to concede on that money), I think the argument would have been stronger.  I can’t remember the statute off the top of my head but there is one that essentially defines contracting and one element is that you are actually charging for the work.  If you’re doing it for free, then it’s not contracting.  Obviously, that doesn’t help if the contractor has no license at all.

	Andrea M. Fair-Purcell

	Board Certified Construction Attorney

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   

FAIR•LAW•PLLC    

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   

13046 Racetrack Road #236 

Tampa, FL 33626                    
(813) 412-1077 phone 

(877) 879-4990 fax                 
www.fairconstructionliens.com <http://www.fairconstructionliens.com> 

	The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this e-mail message. This communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, or if this e-mail message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this e-mail message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments. 

	From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tom McKeel
	Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:16 AM
	To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
	Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] [RPPTL-constructionlaw QUESTION BUT LOOKING FOR A VERY SPECIFIC CASE ONLY

	Jeff Regan in Jacksonville related to me a case he had that I think involved an unlicensed contractor and it involved, if I am not mistaken, the disgorgement of $400,000.00. It might be helpful to call Jeff Regan.  904-356-1300

________________________________

	From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of mromm at rommlaw.com
	Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:35 AM
	To: RPPTL constructionlaw
	Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] [RPPTL-constructionlaw QUESTION BUT LOOKING FOR A VERY SPECIFIC CASE ONLY

	Hi everyone...Michael Romm again:  You may remember we were talking before about permitting...I had a client call me last night. = He is an unlicensed contractor.  He did a 23000.00 kitchen/house remodel. He was paid 20K when owners got upset with him....

	Key point and then question:    At beginning of deal unlicensed contractor said to Mr. and Mrs. homeowner:  "I am not a licensed contractor. Do you understand that?  "YES" they said. "THAT is exactly why we want to hire you.  We don't want a licensed contractor. We like you."  

	"Okay....well you really should pull a permit on this job. You can do it yourself or I can have one of my licensed friends pull it for you..." said the unlicensed contractor.   

	"NO!.  We don't want a permit pulled. We don't want to wait that long and we don't want to pay for it either". said the homeowners.

	"OKAY" said the unlicensed contractor....    

	Now, Owners are suing unlicensed contractor to get their 20K back from him even though work was substantially and properly completed ("substantially and properly - meaning it would have been a lien-able  job if it had been done by a licensed contractor who pulled a permit!)

	SPECIFIC QUESTION:   I recall a case recently mentioned by our group where the court said,  

	COURT:   I will not permit you (the homeowners) who have participated and schemed and practically requested the unlawful activity to use that same unlawful activity  to benefit against the contractor."  Anybody know that case? Cite maybe?  I only need that specific case because I am thinking that I go to the Judge, make one motion and the judge either buys the case and the argument and throws out the lawsuit...or I tell my client he is going to lose the case....

	Michael Romm

	Michael R. Romm, P.A.

	1213 S. 30th Avenue, Suite 2, Hollywood, FL 33020

	Phone: (954) 557-8002

	Fax:  (954) 208-0022

	mromm at rommlaw.com <mailto:mromm at rommlaw.com> 

	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information and all attachments contained in this electronic communication are legally privileged and confidential information, subject to the attorney-client privilege and intended only for the use of intended recipients. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please permanently remove any copies of this message from your system and do not retain any copies, whether in electronic or physical form or otherwise. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.

	TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the requirements of Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: (1) avoiding penalties that maybe imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

	Disclaimer regarding Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ("UETA") (Florida Statutes Section 668.50): If this communication concerns negotiation of a contract or agreement, UETA does not apply to this communication; contract formation in this matter shall occur only with manually-affixed original signatures on original documents.  Law Offices of Michael R. Romm, P.A.

		-------- Original Message --------
		Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury
		instructions
		From: <lan at lwwhiteattorney.com <mailto:lan at lwwhiteattorney.com> >
		Date: Wed, April 18, 2012 1:06 pm
		To: "'RPPTL constructionlaw'" <constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org> >

		These cites and summaries should help.

		Substantial performance applies when actual performance is nearly equivalent to what was bargained for, so that owner can use the property for the intended purpose.  J. M. Beeson Co. v. Sartori, 553 So.2d 180 (Fla 4 DCA 1989); Strategic Resources Group, Inc. v. Knight Ridder, Inc., 870 So.2d 846 (Fla 3 DCA 2003); Waters v. International Precious Metals Corp., 273 F3d 1273 (11th Cir 2001).

		Casa Linda Tile & Marble Installers, Inc. v. Highlands Place 1981, Ltd., 642 So.2d 766 (Fla. 4 DCA 1994).   The DCA noted that where a contractor has substantially performed and otherwise complied with the construction lien statute, it is entitled to award on its mechanic’s lien claim for the contract price less all damages caused by its failure to render full performance.  Substantial performance is defined as that performance of a contract which while not full performance is so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisor’s failure to render full performance.

		Kenmark Construction, Inc. v. Michael Cronin, 765 So.2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).  The contractor sued the owner for foreclosure of a construction lien.  The owner counterclaimed seeking damages for breach of contract.  The trial court stated it doubted whether the contractor built the house in a proper and workmanlike manner or that the owner would be able to use the house in the way he wanted.  Nevertheless, the trial court entered judgment of foreclosure in favor of the contractor.  The trial court, however, declined to award attorney’s fees to either party.  HELD: Reversed as to denial of attorney’s fees.  It is well settled that judgment on a construction lien requires a determination of substantial performance rather than strict performance, citing Poranski v. Millings, 82 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1955).  The trial judge’s decision is consistent with a determination of substantial performance and did not find a breach of contract by the contractor.

		Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411 (Fla 1 DCA 1987).  Worsham, the general contractor, was doing a kitchen and porch remodeling and installing a built up roof.  The cabinets were not sufficient deep and the dishwasher protruded into the space where a drawer would otherwise open.  The roof was to have been 5 ply insulated, but the contractor installed only a 3 ply roof, with no insulation.  The trial court found that the contractor had breached the contract, but that the contractor had attempted in good faith to correct the items and its breach was not willful or intentional.  Accordingly, the trial court only awarded a nominal amount to cut a piece out of the drawer to allow it to open despite the protruding dishwasher and simply allowed a credit for the missing insulation.  The home owner then appealed.  HELD: Reversed.  While the trial court was correct in finding that the contract was breached, it appears the trial court wrongfully intended to apply the doctrine of substantial performance.  However, that doctrine is applicable only where a variance from the specifications of the contract is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work performed is substantially what was bargained for.  Under these facts the doctrine should not be applied.  The measure of damages accruing to the homeowner is the reasonable cost of making the work conform to the contract.

		The Lockhart holding reflects a view under prior law that residences were exceptions to the substantial performance doctrine.   That view is no longer the law, and is tempered by the Economic Waste Doctrine, which applies to situations where the cost of correcting the deficiencies is grossly disproportionate to the value of the completed structure. In such circumstances, the damages can be measured by the difference in value of the structure contracted for and the structure received, as opposed to the cost of correcting the deficiencies. 

		Grossman Holdings, Ltd v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982). - house built facing the wrong direction so owner didn’t get the intended view.  Court held that “[f]or defective or unfinished construction, a plaintiff can recover a judgment for either:

		(1) The reasonable cost of construction and completion in accordance with the contract,

		if this is possible and does not involve unreasonable economic waste; or

		(2) The difference between the value that the product contracted for would have had and

		the value of the performance that has been received by the plaintiff, if the construction

		and completion in accordance with the contract would involve unreasonable economic

		waste.

		Aponte v. Exotic Pools, Inc., 699 So.2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). 

		Where the performance on a contract is defective, the proper measure of damages is the reasonable cost of making the performed work conform to the contract. This maxim is subject to the exception that, where construction in accordance with the contract would involve unreasonable economic waste, the measure of damage for defective construction is the difference between the value of the item contracted for and the value of the performance

		received.

		Regards,

		Lan White

		(727) 797-5599

		From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org>  [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> ] On Behalf Of Fitzsimmons, Bob
		Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:09 AM
		To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim at mccraelaw.com <mailto:jim at mccraelaw.com> 
		Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury instructions

		Does anyone have a set they are willing to share?

		Also, can anyone identify a case stating that an owner is not entitled to a "perfect" building?

		Thanks.

________________________________

		_______________________________________________
		constructionlaw mailing list
		constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org> 
		http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw>  

________________________________

	_______________________________________________
	constructionlaw mailing list
	constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
	http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120501/9cd4435d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 7190 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120501/9cd4435d/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4899 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120501/9cd4435d/image002.jpg>