.

Case Law Alerts

Trial Court Rules a General Contractor Cannot Delegate its Obligation to Comply with Florida Building Code to its Subcontractors

Grande Oaks at Heathrow Association, Inc. v. Kolter Signature Homes, LLC, et al.

October 1, 2022

by Lindsay G. McCormick

In a recent ruling in Florida’s 18th Judicial Circuit, Judge Recksiedler granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association, holding that the general contractor of a townhome project was responsible and, therefore, liable for the building code violations of its subcontractors and could not delegate that liability to its subcontractors.

This case centers on claimed construction defects of a large townhome development. In addition to direct claims from the HOA, Kolter filed indemnity claims against its subcontractors seeking subcontractors’ liability for all of the HOA’s claim, including claims for building code violations. The issue arose as to whether Kolter could delegate the responsibility to comply with the Florida Building Code to its subcontractors through the contract documents.

Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the general contractor who pulled the permits for the construction has a non-delegable duty to supervise, direct, manage and control the work, including the work of its subcontractors, and that such non-delegable duty includes the obligation to comply with the Florida Building Code. Specifically, the court held that by submitting the permit applications for the construction, Kolter had certified that the Florida Building Code would be complied with and had a non-delegable duty relating thereto. It should be noted that the court expressly stated that nothing within the ruling prohibited Kolter from seeking causes of action against other parties to the action, presumably meaning its subcontractors who actually committed the building code violations.

This ruling reminds us all that there are certain non-delegable duties the general contractor holds that cannot be hedged through contract language. Therefore, both the general contractor and subcontractors should be prepared for liability relating to any building code violations proven to exist.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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, 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.