THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
M.R. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Public Health Trust of Dade County appealed confirmation of an arbitration award in a construction contract dispute with M.R. Harrison Construction Corporation. The appellate court affirmed the confirmation, rejecting arguments that sovereign immunity barred arbitration, that arbitration was untimely invoked, and that the general contractor lacked standing to recover on behalf of subcontractors.
The court affirmed the confirmation of the arbitration award. Sovereign immunity does not bar contractual arbitration provisions; the timeliness of arbitration invocation had been answered in the earlier opinion; and a general contractor under a government contract may recover on behalf of subcontractors.
[1] Sovereign immunity does not prevent arbitration when a contract provides for it.
[2] A general contractor on a government contract can recover on behalf of subcontractors.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is clear that a general contractor under a government contract can recover on behalf of subcontractors”
Establishes the holding that general contractors have standing to recover damages on behalf of their subcontractors in government contract disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a contract providing for arbitration. Following an earlier appellate opinion in the same case, the controversy proceeded to arbitratio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following an earlier opinion in this cause reported in Public Health Trust of Dade County v. M.R. Harrison Construction Corporation, 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the controversy proceeded to arbitration and resulted in an award which was confirmed by the circuit court. This appeal ensued.
The appellant urges basically three points for reversal of the confirmation of the award. First, that notwithstanding the contract provisions providing for arbitration, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevented same; second, that even if the arbitration proceeding was valid, it was not timely invoked by the general contractor; and lastly, that the general contractor could not recover on behalf of the subcontractor. The first point has been answered adversely to the appellant by the recent Supreme Court opinion Pan-Am Tobacco Corporation v. Department of Corrections (Fla.1984), Case No. 63,215, opinion filed March 1, 1984, 9 FLW 73, Rev’g 425 So. 2d 1167 (1st DCA 1983). The second point was specifically answered in the earlier opinion in this cause. Lastly, it is clear that a general contractor under a government contract can recover on behalf of subcontractors, United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730, 64 S.Ct. 820, 88 L.Ed. 1039 (1944); Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation v. United States, 419 F. 2d 439 (Ct.Cl.1969); St. Paul Dredging Co. v. State, 259 Minn. 398, 107 N.W. 2d 717 (1961); Buckley & Company, Inc. v. State, 140 N.J.Super. 289, 356 A. 2d 56 (S.Ct.1975); Ardsley Construction Company, Inc. v. Port of New York Authority, 61 A.D.2d 953, 403 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1978), in fact, in many instances the subcontractors are prevented from bringing a direct action. See & Compare: United States v. Blair, supra; St. Paul Dredging Co. v. State, supra; Buckley & Company, Inc., v. State, supra.
Therefore for the reasons above stated, the order under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newberry Square Dev. Corp. v. S. Landmark, Inc., 578 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…the subcontractor is unable to establish an express or implied contract with the project owner. See Farrell Construction Co. v. Jefferson Parish, 693 F.Supp. 490 (E.D.La.1988); Public Health Trust of Dade County v. M.R. Harrison Construction Corp., 454 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also, Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing Au [*754] thority of Norwich, 149 Conn. 602, 183 A. 2d 262 (1962). But the present case does not involve a public contract, and Southern Landmark is made contractually liable to the su…
-
Allen v. McCALL, 521 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ecided by the arbitrator, not the court); Public Health Trust v. M.R. Harrison Construction Corp., 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla.3rd DCA 1982) (whether demand for arbitration was timely made is to be decided by arbitrator, not the court), appeal after remand, 454 So. 2d 659 (1984). Accordingly, the judgment under review is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to remand the matter to the arbitrator who — if not disqualified as a material witness on the issue of notice — shall determine whet…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 627 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…with the COUNTY and -therefore had no direct right of action against the COUNTY. As a general contractor, ROONEY was entitled to pursue its own claim and those of its subcontractors against the COUNTY. Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Harrison, 454 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). ROONEYs Complaint pled facts which as a matter of law made the No Damage for Delay provision limiting damages for delay to $l,000/day unenforceable. The COUNTY sought to limit ROONEY to $l,000/day and filed a Motion for Summary…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1944)
- The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. M.R. Harrison Constr. Corp., 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & Polytron Co. v. The United States, 419 F.2d 439 (Ct. Cl. 1969)
- Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. State, 425 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)