arrow left
arrow right
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
  • WOOLUM, MARK vs CHARLES FRY INC Negligence-Construction Defect document preview
						
                                

Preview

35-2024-CA-000546-AXXX-01 Filing # 194569692 E-Filed 03/21/2024 05:15:19 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION MARK WOOLUM and CASE NO.: BRIGITTE WOOLUM, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES FRY, INC., Defendant(s). / PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COME NOW the Plaintiffs, MARK WOOLUM and BRIGITTE WOOLUM (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sue Defendant, CHARLES FRY, INC., and as grounds therefore state as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for damages in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs owned real property located at 499 Blue Cypress Drive, Groveland, Florida, 34736. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant, CHARLES FRY, INC., was a corporation duly licensed to conduct contractor services in the State of Florida and is doing business in Lake County, Florida. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Plaintiffs own the home located at 499 Blue Cypress Drive, Groveland, Florida, 34736 (“the Home”). FILED: LAKE COUNTY, GARY J. COONEY, CLERK, 03/22/2024 12:40:11 PM 6. Defendant is the contractor who built the Home. 7. Subsequent to the construction of the Home, certain design and construction deficiencies were observed at the Home. 8. Plaintiffs seek recovery herein for damages proximately caused by the improper design and/or construction of the Home, which resulted in the numerous defects and deficiencies in various systems and components at the Home, including violations of local and national building codes. 9. The existence or causes of the defects are not readily recognizable by Plaintiffs, who lack special knowledge or training. 10. The defects are hidden by components or finishes, are latent in nature, and are defects that require special knowledge or training to ascertain and determine the nature and causes of the defects. 11. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have occurred, have been performed, or have been waived, including but not limited to the requirements of section 558.004, Florida Statutes. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE AS TO CHARLES FRY, INC. 12. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 11, as though fully set forth herein. 13. At all material times hereto, the work performed by Defendant’s agents/employees was within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant. 14. Defendant and their employees/agents affirmatively undertook the duty and obligation to properly perform subcontracting operations at the Home. 15. Defendant and their employees/agents either knew or should have known that Plaintiffs’ Property could foreseeably be injured as a result of Defendant’s negligent subcontracting operations at the Home. 16. Defendant and their employees/agents’ negligent subcontracting operations at the Home created a foreseeable zone of risk of injury to Plaintiffs’ Property and Plaintiffs themselves. 17. Defendant and their agents/employees owed a legal duty of care to Plaintiffs and their Property to properly conduct subcontracting operations at the Home so as to avoid damage to Plaintiffs’ Property with reasonable care, skill, and diligence, in accordance with the prevailing standard of care for contractors, professionals, consultants, and engineers performing such services or similar services in the community under similar circumstances. 18. Defendant and their agents/employees breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiffs by failing to properly conduct subcontracting operations at the Home so as to avoid damage to Plaintiffs’ Property in accordance with the prevailing standard of care for contractors, professionals, and consultants performing such services or similar services in the community under similar circumstances. 19. Defendant breached the duty owed to the Plaintiffs by building the home on soil that was not properly compacted. Question shallow soils at the property exist, including shallow soils that correlate to load bearing soils of less than 2,000 PSF. 20. Defendant breached the duty of care owed to the Plaintiffs by constructing the home with insufficient stucco thickness that has led to water intrusion, extraneous cracking, and delamination. 21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs’ property has suffered physical damage. The aforementioned construction defects have resulted in consequential damage to the structure. This has resulted in both functional damage and structural damage to the home. The consequential damages include but are not limited to large cracks, moisture intrusion, mold, building material damage, flooring system damages and massive cosmetic damages. Moreover, the property injury has resulted in “permanent impairment of market value.” 22. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant’s negligent conduct, including but not limited to, the costs of substantial repair to the Property, the loss of use and enjoyment of the Property, permanent impairment of market value, the costs of retaining consultants to investigate and provide remedial recommendations, and other foreseeable damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. 23. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action and Plaintiffs’ right to recover from Defendant have been satisfied, excused, or waived. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter final judgment against Defendant for damages, together with interest, costs, and other such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. FURTHER, Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all issues so triable. By: /s/ Christopher Palermo Christopher M. Palermo, Esquire Florida Bar Number 104000 Meghan DeTemple, Esquire Florida Bar Number 125382 Law Office of Christopher Palermo, P.A. 258 Crystal Grove Boulevard Lutz, Florida 33548 Phone: (813) 221-5636 Fax: (813) 864-4437 Primary: dpelaez@palermopa.com Secondary: smorales@palermopa.com Service Only: service@palermopa.com Attorney for Plaintiffs