GOZZO DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellant, v. Anne M. ESKER, Clay Lane Rental Limited Partnership, a Nevada Limited Partnership, Brent G. Wolmer, P.A., Robert M. Weinberger, P.A., Kenneth J. Scherer, P.A., David B. Norris, P.A., Law Office of Fred C. Cohen, P.A., d/b/a Cohen, Norris, Scherer, Weinburger & Wolmer, Professional Roofing Contractors, Inc., Turquoise Consulting, Inc., Coastal Windows and Doors, Inc., Stone Image, Inc., and Bulldog Fence, Inc., Appellees

Florida District Court of Appeal · May 18, 2016 · Docket No. 4D15-276
199 So. 3d 940

Syllabus

GOZZO DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellant, v. Anne M. ESKER, Clay Lane Rental Limited Partnership, a Nevada Limited Partnership, Brent G. Wolmer, P.A., Robert M. Weinberger, P.A., Kenneth J. Scherer, P.A., David B. Norris, P.A., Law Office of Fred C. Cohen, P.A., d/b/a Cohen, Norris, Scherer, Weinburger & Wolmer, Professional Roofing Contractors, Inc., Turquoise Consulting, Inc., Coastal Windows and Doors, Inc., Stone Image, Inc., and Bulldog Fence, Inc., Appellees. No. 4D15-276. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. May 18, 2016. Michael Monteverde of Bressl'er Amery & Ross, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Thomas Regnier and Hinda Klein of Conroy, Simberg, Hollywood, for appellee Coastal Windows & Doors, Inc. Daniel P. Stiffler and Rosalind R. Milian of Law Office of Lorraine Lester, Plantation, for appellee Stone Image, Inc.

Full Opinion (1,240 characters)
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s final summary judgment on, its complaint against appellees Coastal Windows and Doors, Inc., and Stone Image, Inc., for indemnity and contribution to its liability for construction defects. We agree with appellant that there remained issues of material fact as to whether section 553.84, Florida Statutes (2005), precluded appellant from seeking indemnification. The exception to liability in section 553.84 requires a showing as to various facts, many of which were not addressed in the record.
Further, as appellant sought indemnity for violations of both statutory and non-statutory building standards, it was error to grant summary judgment on the indemnity claim under a provision that applies only to statutory liability. The Statutory building code does not preclude liability for violating a contractual duty to adhere to local building standards. See id,
However, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment on the contribution claim, as appellant’s right to contribution had not arisen by the effective date of the revised statute barring joint and several liability.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.