Construction

  • BUILDING A FIRM FOUNDATION

    CONSTRUCTION

    Probate Tax Real State

Construction

General contractors, subcontractors, architectural and engineering design professionals, and owners and developers call upon Wicker Smith when representation is needed in construction disputes of all types. Our extensive experience includes representing and defending parties in construction defect disputes involving all areas of construction, from project design and engineering to construction to acceptance and approval by the governmental agency. Wicker Smith is adept at handling construction disputes from pre-suit through trial.

We also advise clients on issues pertaining to regulatory compliance, including OSHA compliance, insurance coverage, potential liability, contract language and drafting, and pre-suit investigation and defense. Our attorneys routinely handle cases involving large commercial developments such as office parks and shopping malls, office buildings, commercial and industrial structures, high-rises, condominiums, residential subdivision developments, and residential homes ranging in value from $300,000 to more than $100 million. Wicker Smith is a strong partner adept at forging positive outcomes in all facets of construction-related projects.

We are results oriented and work efficiently and in a cost-effective manner to bring added value to our clients’ matters. Not only are our attorneys excellent lawyers, several also hold Florida contracting and roofing licenses, giving the firm a unique understanding in complex property loss and construction litigation cases. This distinctive understanding allows for timely resolution in many instances.

Areas of representation include:

  • Construction Defect Claims, Including Against the Architect, Engineer, General Contractor and Subcontractor
  • Governmental Site Civil Projects, Including Road Construction and Improvements
  • Subsurface/Geotechnical Problems
  • Contract Compliance
  • Project Delay
  • Payment and Performance Bond Claims
  • Contractual Indemnity
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Property Damage
  • OSHA Penalty Proceedings
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Claims, Including Breach of Contract, Lien Claims and Enforcement

Breach of Contract Related to Home Construction

Attorneys: John Floyd Jr.

Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to construction of a home. Defendant countersued for breach of contract for Plaintiff’s failure to complete the build of home and defamation of title. Defendant, our client, was awarded $300,000 in the countersuit.

Neighborhood Negligence Issue

Attorneys: Brandon M. Nichols, David C. Merrill, Cary W. Capper

A general negligence subrogation matter stemming from a blockage in sewer line, resulting in damage. The final outcome was a directed verdict.

Construction Defect Claim

Attorneys: R. Baron Ringhofer

The claimant alleged defects and non-conformities in the manufacture and installation of a manufactured home. Claimant asked for $65,000 plus fees, but our client ultimately paid less than $500 to resolve the matter.

Summary Judgment: Hillsborough County, Florida (Construction Defect)

Attorneys: James R. Brown, Andrew Willers
Tampa Partners, Jim Brown and Andrew Willers, obtained final summary judgment in a construction defect case in Hillsborough County, Florida, last week. They defended a window manufacturer, which was sued by a Homeowner’s Association for alleged construction defects. It was alleged that the installation instructions were improper and that this lead to numerous defects and damages with the conventional wood framed walls covered with stucco. The summary judgment argument was made in two parts: the first, that the case was barred by the four year statute of limitations; and the second, that the case was barred by the doctrine of laches. As to the statute of limitations defense, there were no documents produced that showed the exact date when the defects were discovered, which would have triggered the running of the statute of limitations. However, an expert report suggested the defects had been discovered more than four years before suit was filed. Also, the HOA’s banking records pertaining to a loan to pay for the exterior wall repairs suggested that the defects were discovered more than four years before the suit was filed. Plaintiff filed an expert affidavit and argued that the Association could not have possibly discovered the defects until much later. This argument was rejected and summary judgment was granted. As to Laches, it was argued that even if the statute of limitations did not bar the case, the doctrine of laches did. The Association delayed bringing suit, and they failed to issue a 558 Notice of Intent. Also, once in suit, the Association changed the specific allegations against the window manufacturer close to trial, and the Association lost or destroyed relevant evidence; thus, prejudicing the window manufacturer’s defenses. Summary judgment was also granted as to Laches. Congratulations to Jim and Drew on this excellent work on behalf of our client.

Attorneys

You May Also Be Interested In:

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.