PEREZ-GURRI CORPORATION, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
DON MCLEOD, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Perez-Gurri Corporation, a general contractor on a Miami renovation project, appealed the dismissal of its delay damages claim against engineering design defendants. The court reversed, holding that a 'No Damages for Delay' clause in the prime contract protected only the City, not the subcontracted design defendants, and that the trial court erred by adding a new pleading-deficiency ground for dismissal without notice or opportunity to amend.
The 'No Damages for Delay' clause in the General Contractor-City contract insulates only the City from liability for delay damages, not subcontracted third-party defendants like the EDA Defendants. The trial court erred by adding a pleading-deficiency ground for dismissal without first notifying the General Contractor and providing an opportunity to amend its complaint.
[1] A "No Damages for Delay" clause in a contract between a City and a General Contractor insulates only the City from liability for delay damages, not subcontractors.
[2] A trial court errs by adding a new basis for dismissal, such as a pleading deficiency, without providing the non-moving party notice and an opportunity to amend their com…
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“the 'No Damages for Delay' clause in the contract between the General Contractor and the City insulates only the City from liability for delay damages”
Establishes that the delay damages clause does not protect subcontracted third-party defendants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerez-Gurri Corporation was the general contractor for a City of Miami renovation project. The City subcontracted with an architect, who subcontracted…
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 Professional Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
Perez-Gurri Corporation (the General Contractor) appeals a trial court order dismissing its action against defendants Engineering Design Associates, Inc., Mitchell Stewart, and Robert Salsbury (the EDA Defendants). We reverse. The General Contractor is not contractually barred from bringing a delay damages claim against these defendants and the General Contractor should be allowed an opportunity to amend its complaint to address the trial court’s added ruling—made without notice to the parties—that the complaint did not meet minimum pleading standards against these defendants.
*1189The General Contractor is a Florida construction company that successfully bid on, and became the general contractor for, a City of Miami renovation project for the Caribbean Marketplace in Little Haiti. The City’s prime consultant on the project subcontracted with an architect who, in turn, subcontracted with the EDA Defendants to prepare mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design services. When construction on the renovation project was delayed, the General Contractor sued the EDA Defendants.
In its fourth amended complaint, the General Contractor alleged that the delay was caused by the EDA Defendants’ professional malpractice in the preparation of the design documents for the renovation project. The EDA Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that a “No Damages for Delay” clause in the contract between the General Contractor and the City of Miami insulated the EDA Defendants from liability.
In October 2015, the trial court entered a nonfinal order granting the EDA Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the “No Damages for Delay” clause in the contract between the General Contractor and the City. The General Contractor moved for entry of final judgment so it could challenge on appeal the trial court’s interpretation of the General Contractor-City contract. The trial court indicated that in order for it to enter a final dismissal with prejudice, the General Contractor would have to “affirmatively state that [it] cannot embrace another theory because it has to be clear that the Court is allowing [it] leave to amend.” The General Contractor thereafter gave formal notice that it was not going to amend its complaint as to the claims brought against the EDA Defendants. It stated, “[i]n light of this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, including those that relate to the contract, Plaintiff believes that any further amendment would be futile.”
The trial court entered its final judgment of dismissal in February 2016. However, in addition to its prior ruling that the General Contractor’s claims were precluded by the “No Damages for Delay” clause, the trial court added a new basis for dismissal—that the General Contractor failed to meet minimum pleading requirements. This appeal followed.
We reverse and remand for two reasons. First, for the reasons explained in the companion case of Perez-Gurri Corp. v. McLeod, No. 3D15-2590, — So.3d—, 2017 WL 5616924 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 22, 2017), the “No Damages for Delay” clause in the contract between the General Contractor and the City insulates only the City from liability for delay damages.
Second, we conclude it was error to add an alternate basis for dismissal not raised by the parties—a pleading deficiency— without first giving the General Contractor notice of this new ground and an opportunity to amend its complaint. The .record shows that the General Contractor’s statement that it would not amend its complaint was predicated solely on its effort to appeal the trial court’s dispositive ruling that the delay damages clause protected the EDA Defendants. Prior to making that statement, the General Contractor had no notice that the trial court was going to dismiss its case on the alternative basis that the pleadings were insufficient. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to provide the General Contractor an opportunity to amend its complaint against the EDA Defendants.
Reversed and remanded.