Tag Archives: construction defect

Mandatory Presuit Notice Requirement in Construction Defect Litigation in Florida

Posted on by

In the recent case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Peterson, 2025 WL 615093 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 26, 2025), the Third District Court of Appeal held that a case alleging construction defects must be stayed pending compliance with Chapter 558’s Notice and Opportunity to Cure Process.

Background:
A condominium unit owner sued the building’s general contractor, Moss & Associates, along with the condominium association, alleging property damage due to construction defects. Moss moved to stay the litigation, citing Peterson’s failure to comply with the statutory presuit notice requirements under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the stay. On appeal, this decision was reversed.

Key Legal Issue:
The primary issue on appeal was whether a trial court must stay litigation when a claimant fails to serve a presuit notice of claim before filing suit for construction defects, as required by Chapter 558.

Appellate Court’s Ruling:
The appellate court held:

  • The failure to provide a presuit notice of claim under § 558.004 constitutes irreparable harm.
  • The trial court was statutorily required to stay the action under § 558.003, once it was clear the claimant had not complied with presuit procedures.
  • The lower court’s refusal to apply the statute’s plain language was a departure from the essential requirements of law.

Why It Matters:
This case underscores the mandatory nature of Florida’s Chapter 558 notice procedures, which aim to encourage resolution of construction defect claims without litigation. Courts have no discretion to bypass this requirement when a claimant has failed to comply.

Takeaway for Contractors and Design Professionals:
When faced with a lawsuit alleging construction defects, it’s essential to assess whether the claimant followed Chapter 558’s presuit notice procedures. If not, Florida law entitles defendants to a stay of proceedings.

General Contractor’s Insurance Claim

Posted on by

When is a General Contractor’s Insurance Claim Against Subcontractor’s Insurance Ripe?

In Core Construction Services Southeast, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, Core sued Crum for breaches of commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies and seeking a declaration as to whether the insurers must defend and indemnify Core under the terms of the contracts. 2015 WL 3929696 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2015).  Core was the general contractor of a condominium.  After the condominium was built, construction defect litigation was commenced.  Core required its subcontractors to name it as an additional insured under their CGL policies.

Core filed the above-referenced lawsuit seeking coverage on the subcontractor insurance policies.  The Insurer argues that the matter is not ripe for adjudication because the construction defect litigation has not concluded.  The United States District Court, Middle District of Florida held that the case was ripe.  An insurer’s duty to defend arises out of allegations in the underlying complaint and the terms of the insurance policy.  While the duty to indemnify is not ripe until the underlying litigation has concluded, the duty to defend is ripe.