![]() ![]() The Andersons argued that the arbitration provision was void as against public policy because it barred recovery of all statutory and contractual claims and that it was unconscionable. The Builder sought to compel arbitration on the basis of a provision in the Warranty provided with the purchase of the home. They claimed that the code violations were latent and not readily observable or known to them "until damages began to manifest themselves in the form of cracking to the exterior stucco years after construction ended." They also alleged that the Builder knew or should have known that the building code was violated during the construction of the home and that the violations caused damages to them. The Andersons alleged that the Builder violated the building code "by inadequately and improperly installing the stucco system on" their home. Unable to resolve the matter, the Andersons filed a three-count complaint in September 2015 alleging (1) violation of the Florida Building Code under section 553.84, Florida Statutes (2009) (2) breach of contract and (3) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), ยงยง 501.201-.213, Fla. The notice referred to an attached engineering report and stated that the report found "construction defects associated with the application of the exterior stucco system to home." The report specified that the installation failed to meet the applicable building code provisions and that at multiple locations the cladding material had an inadequate thickness. In June 2015, the Andersons provided notice to the Builder pursuant to section 558.004, Florida Statutes (2015), of construction defects based on building code violations. ![]() The Andersons took possession of the home in November 2009. In April 2009, the Andersons entered into a sales agreement with the Builder to purchase a home. Based on this disposition, we do not reach the remaining issue the Andersons raise of unconscionability. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings. Because the arbitration provision contained in the limited warranty (the Warranty) that the Builder provided to the Andersons limits their statutory remedies, we conclude that the provision is void as against public policy. Reginald and Michelle Anderson appeal a nonfinal order that stays proceedings in the trial court and compels arbitration in this action against their home builder, Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. Sivyer of Sivyer Barlow & Watson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee. Burnett of Burnett Wilson Reeder, Tampa, for Appellants. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County Cheryl K. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED Appeal Pursuant to Fla.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |