Areas of Specialized Knowledge

Becker prides itself on careful, upfront analysis of complicated delay claims in order to identify a client’s potential recovery or damage exposure. Becker’s Construction Law Practice Group has vast experience in the representation of property owners, developers, homeowners, contractors and subcontractors, design professionals, materials manufacturers in connection with construction of high-rise and other residential developments, condominium conversions of older rental property, commercial property, mixed-use projects and governmental buildings focused in these areas:

• Design and construction defects and deficiencies relating to residential and commercial construction, including exterior envelope deficiencies resulting in water intrusion, fire and structural life safety issues
• Pre-suit dispute resolution including those involving Chapter 558, Florida Statutes
• Construction Delays
• Liens
• Hurricane Recovery & Rebuilding
• Insurance Coverage Disputes – negotiations and resolution of insurance claims relating to rebuilding
• Mold and Mildew claims
• Construction Contracts and related documents including loan documentation

Significant Cases

The firm has been a leader in Construction law as evidenced by serving as counsel of record in many of the leading appellate cases involving construction law including, but not limited to, the following:

Moransais v. Heathman, 749 So.2d 973 (Fla. Supreme Court): This Florida Supreme Court overturned it’s previously held the view of the Economic Loss Doctrine providing that any aggrieved party may recover damages from a design professional based on negligence, without the economic loss rule acting as a bar to such claims. This historic case reversed a trend in the courts that prohibited those not in privity with homeowners, including condominium associations, from suing design professionals for damages resulting from their negligent conduct.

Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A., Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Association, Inc., 573 So.2d 889, 892 (Fla. 2d DCA): The Court held that design professionals that acquire approval before construction are considered to have complied with the applicable standard of care. However, this approval may be successfully challenged if it can be demonstrated that the approval was “clearly erroneous.” This case’s significance is that design professionals are held liable for damages when their building plans contain details that fail to comply with the applicable building code.  

Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037: When construction or design defects in real property cannot be corrected, or when the cost of remedying such defects would be greater than the value of the property, the measure of damages is the “diminution of the value of the property.” This case is important because it provided a measure of damages that a homeowner could recover for defective construction.

Munder v. Circle One Condominium, Inc., 596 So.2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA): In this critical case, the Court found no basis for piercing the corporate veil where the developer made a conscious business decision not to renew a fire insurance policy on the condominium clubhouse as opposed to neglecting to pay the premium. This case confirmed the duty of a condominium developer to ensure that appropriate insurance coverage would be acquired for condominium associations.

Drexel Properties, Inc. v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 406 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA), disapproved in part 620 So.2d 1245: The Court affirmed an award of damages based on a breach of implied warranty. This case firmly established the rights of condominium unit owners for breach of common law implied warranties by developer/builders in Florida and is one of the most widely cited cases in condominium construction law.

Stone’s Throw Condominium Association, Inc. v. Sand Cove Apartments, Inc., 749 So.2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA): Condominium association has cause of action to recover economic damages from design professional based on cause of action for negligence. This case is significant because it was the first appellate decision to be issued after the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision in Moransais v. Heathman dealing with the application of the Economic Loss Doctrine.

Vantage View Inc. v. Bali East Development Corp., 421 So.2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA):In this case, the Association successfully stated a cause of action against developer parent corporation for the acts of its subsidiary where subsidiary was found to be without any separate interests of its own, functioning solely to achieve the parent corporation’s purposes and to mislead creditors and avoid liability. This case affirmed that the pleadings successfully established a viable cause of action against condominium developers for breach of implied warranties.

The firm has represented The School Board of Broward County (SBBC) since 1994. We are retained to resolve numerous delay and defect claims, redraft construction-related contracts, prevent future claims and, when necessary, file suits against the District’s vendors. The firm’s experience representing SBBC includes cases ranging from disputes for time and money to correction of warranty work by general contractors from whom retainage was being withheld. The firm successfully defended the SBBC on numerous claims for millions of dollars. In addition, the firm has been responsible for completely overhauling and redrafting its construction contracts to avoid some of the problems the District had been litigating with architects, engineers, and contractors.

Our team adds value to every engagement. We assess the political landscape, reach out to key decision makers, and advise on regulatory requirements.  We also advise on procurement strategies, deal structure, and contract negotiations. We assist in structuring all aspects of the transaction, while continually providing general legal and strategic counsel in areas including:

• Real Estate, Transactional, Financing. Our Real Estate, Corporate and Securities attorneys help structure, document and close transactions; they assess project feasibility, address land use issues, handle all contracts and draft funding agreements;
• Legislation and Lobbying. Our Government Law & Lobbying team provides on-call 24 hour/day service helping clients navigate the political landscape for a project and develop strategies for winning support with stakeholders;
• Procurement. Our procurement attorneys assist clients in complying with all requirements of the public contracting and procurement process;
• Development Reviews and Project Permitting. Our firm’s land use attorneys advise clients on compliance with laws relating to development, environment, land use and more that are needed for government approval of major infrastructure projects;
• Contract Drafting. Our firm handles the drafting and review of all manner of agreements necessary to implement P3s, including, but not limited to, development agreements, operation agreements, lease agreements, memoranda of understanding, and financial agreements.

Experience 

• The P3 team played an active role in drafting and helping win passage of the PPP law enacted in Florida in 2013 and the amendments thereto. P3 team members speak regularly about the law and the opportunities it presents. Our P3 team has made numerous presentations to interested agencies and at conferences all around the country.
• The firm is a founder of the Florida Council for Public/Private Partnerships, a state-wide P3 trade association consisting of nearly 100 members from the public and private sectors. We are also active members of the Performance-Based Building Coalition, a national organization and public and private P3 participants that, among other things, advocated for private activity bonds in Washington, D.C. Finally, we are active members of the Association for Improvement of America’s Infrastructure, another organization favoring P3s as an integral part of its mission.
  

Representative Cases: 

• Obtained a ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Raiser-DC, LLC v. B&L Service, Inc. and Broward County, Florida (2018), which held that Broward County was required to disclose information about Uber’s operations at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, despite Uber’s claims that the records were trade secret information and exempt from Florida’s Public Records Act.
• Obtained a $3 million jury verdict against a high-rise residential developer for breach of warranty claims, that was trebled to $9 million under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, in Grandview At Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian At Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC, et al. (2017).
• Obtained a jury verdict for compensatory and punitive damages in the amount $11,906,171 against four bulk-buyer-related, former condominium association directors under claims of breach of fiduciary duty based on actions taken by the former directors that were contrary to the interests of the association and its owners, in Shores of Panama Resort Community Association, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Solly Halberthal, Isere Halberthal, Joshua Ostreicher, and Jay Glatter, Defendants (2016).
• Obtained a permanent injunction against the City of Fort Lauderdale prohibiting it from implementing a lease with a developer to build a water park on City land because the City failed to submit the contract for competitive bidding, in Premier Parks, LLC. v. The City Of Fort Lauderdale (2017). Subsequently, our client became the successful bidder for the water park.
• Obtained a ruling by Fourth District Court of Appeal in Lyons v. Lyons (2015), which held for the first time that a married grantor of homestead property cannot challenge the deed she signed without joinder by her husband because she lacked standing to do so.
• Prevailed on appeal on behalf of a transportation service provider in a bid protest dispute arising out of Broward County’s award of a shuttle bus contract for Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, in Academy Express, LLC v. Broward County (2011).
• Prevailed on appeal on behalf of a residential land developer where the court held the developer was exempt from the disclosure requirements under the federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA) statute, in Van Hook v. The Residences at Coconut Point (2010).
• Prevailed at trial and on appeal on behalf of a real estate developer in a breach of contract suit against famed boxing promoter Don King regarding a parcel of property located in Palm Beach County, in DK Arena, Inc. v. E.B. Acquisitions I, LLC (2010). The decision affirmed the trial court’s finding that Mr. King breached obligations in a dispute concerning a $23-million purchase and sale agreement for real estate. This case also firmly established the precedent that detrimental reliance upon verbal representations in the context of a real estate transaction can, under certain circumstances, overcome the statute of frauds.
• Represented several thousand investors in a securities fraud and Interstate Land Sales Act (ILSFDA) class action against a publicly traded home builder and affiliates alleging fraud in connection with the sale of new homes as pre-leased investment properties, in Sewell v. D’Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. (2009). The class was certified and the firm was approved by the court as class counsel. The certified class included 2,000 – 4,000 individuals. The case settled in December 2011 following four years of contentious litigation and considerable motion practice resulting in a substantial payment to the class.
• Prevailed on behalf of the purchaser of assets from a bankruptcy estate in an adversarial bankruptcy matter authorizing the purchaser’s acquisition of assets from the trustee, in In re Chira (2009).
• Represented a national class of consumers against a wireless phone insurer, alleging that insurers demanded unreasonable deductibles on phone protection policies, failed to adequately inform that refurbished phones were available and provided replacement phones that cost less than deductibles, in Perez v. Asurian Corporation (2007). The Court approved a class action settlement providing for improved disclosures, improved claims administration procedures, monetary relief, and additional subclass relief in the form of vouchers redeemable for a free phone.
• Obtained an appellate court ruling that government officials enjoyed qualified immunity from suit based on officials’ land-use determinations concerning the interpretation of a comprehensive land-use plan, in Southwest Ranches v. Kalam, (2009). The Court held that the qualified immunity doctrine applied to officials at the earliest possible time, prior to having to incur an expense of defense including discovery. The Court based its application of the immunity doctrine on objective standards, concluding that the official’s intent was irrelevant to the application of the doctrine of immunity.
• Successfully defended the City of Hollywood and a real estate developer, with vested rights, from constitutional challenges brought by a citizens group relating to the City’s review criteria for development approval, in Friends of Great Southern, Inc. v. City of Hollywood (2007).
• Prevailed on behalf of property owner seeking disbursement of loan proceeds in action brought by mortgage broker, seeking to freeze loan proceeds as security in commission dispute, in Cohen Financial, LP v. KMC/EC II/LLC, 967 So. 2d 224 ( Fla. 3rd DCA 2007).
• Prevailed on behalf of client seeking reversal of trial court judgment holding individual personally liable, in Penichet v. American Recruiters Consolidated, Inc., 929 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
• Defended a $400-million lawsuit by the FDIC against third-party providers for bank fraud.
• Represented a multi-billion-dollar federal bank in trademark enforcement and domain dispute matters. The firm successfully litigated a range of claims including the infringement of the bank’s registered trademark, false designation of origin, cyber-piracy, unfair competition, and deceptive and unfair trade practices.
• Successfully represented one of the named former directors of Banco Latino in an action brought under the RICO statute, in U.S. District Court, by the Government of Venezuela. The firm obtained personal jurisdiction in Florida over a Mexican telecommunications company in an action brought by a U.S. citizen.