Hochberg v. THOMAS CARTER PAINTING, INC.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8411
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 2000, Hochbergs hired Miller Construction to build their home, which then subcontracted work to The Place for Tile, Thomas Carter Painting, Window Professionals, and General Caulking & Coatings.
- By 2003 the Hochbergs experienced mold smells and damp carpeting, prompting contact with Miller and remediation efforts.
- An engineer’s report dated February 4, 2004 identified water intrusion in multiple locations; Hochbergs issued a Demand for Arbitration and later a Supplement alleging numerous construction deficiencies.
- The Hochbergs filed suit against The Place for Tile on July 24, 2008, and later added third-party claims against the other subcontractors in 2009.
- Section 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes, sets a four-year limitations period for construction defect actions, with a tolling provision for latent defects based on discovery.
- The trial court held the claims were time-barred; the appellate court affirmed, rejecting tolling based on later discovery of the defect as the defects were manifest by 2003–2004.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the four-year limitations period expired before filing suit | Hochbergs contend tolling until discovery of exact defects. | Defendants argue defect was manifest by 2003–2004 and discovery tolling does not extend beyond that. | Limitations expired; no tolling applied. |
| Whether latent-defect discovery tolling applies to extend the period | Discovery of precise defect should toll the period. | Tolling not available once manifest defect evident. | Tolling rejected; no extension. |
| Whether notice of defect can be inferred at manifestation | Plaintiff had notice of a defect but not its exact nature. | Obvious defect suffices for notice; discovery of specifics not required. | Notice inferred at manifestation; discovery not required. |
| Whether discovery rule delays accrual against multiple defendants | Not applicable; accrual occurred when manifest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Performing Arts Center Auth. v. Clark Constr. Grp., Inc., 789 So.2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (notice inferred at manifestation of defect)
- Almand Constr. Co. v. Evans, 547 So.2d 626 (Fla. 1989) (manifestation triggers notice)
- Kelley v. School Bd. of Seminole Cnty., 435 So.2d 804 (Fla. 1983) (notice upon obvious defect)
- K/F Dev. & Inv. Corp. v. Williamson Crane & Dozer Corp., 367 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (discovery rule for latent defects)
- Snyder v. Wernecke, 813 So.2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (notice of invasion of legal rights upon manifest defect)