.

Case Law Alerts

FL Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Because Only a Portion of Work by Defendant Required Specialty Certificate

ABA Interior, Inc. v. The Owen Corp., 2022 WL 386103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)

April 1, 2022

by Lindsay G. McCormick

The interesting aspect of this case is that we are not dealing with an issue of claimed defective work or resulting damages from the work. Instead, the issue centers on the fact that the subcontract contained the standard provision that the subcontractor would comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances. In Palm Beach County, where the work was performed, there is a local ordinance that requires subcontractors to obtain a certificate of competency for their scope of work. Further, Palm Beach County made it unlawful for someone without that certificate of competency to “hold himself/herself out as a contractor, whether as a plaintiff, defendant or witness in any court in this county.” 

Because of this local code, when the general contractor learned that ABA Interior did not hold the required certificate of competency, they stopped paying under the contract, despite the work being complete. ABA Interior sued to collect under the subcontract. In the underlying suit, the general contractor was granted summary judgment because the Palm Beach County local ordinance prevented them from being a plaintiff in any action. However, the lower court did not rule on whether or not the failure to obtain the certificate of competency was a breach of the subcontract. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the general contractor because only a portion of the work by ABA Interior required the specialty certificate. 

Despite the reversal, this case highlights the importance of ensuring that a contractor is licensed and complying with all local ordinances for areas it does work. This includes on the front end and in the case of ensuing litigation. The subcontract provision requiring compliance with federal, state and local laws, and ordinances is a standard provision and likely to appear in many subcontracts. And while the court here did not rule on whether or not failing to obtain the local specialty certificate was a breach, this issue is open and ripe for consideration. Further, this is not the fight you want to be in as a contractor, so the lesson is pay close attention and comply with all licensing requirements. 
 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.