Preview
Filing # 193693189 E-Filed 03/11/2024 08:24:17 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit
corporation;
Plaintiff, Case No.: 2020-CA-002942
v.
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING
AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL
FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON
KING’S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida
corporation; HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation;
IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. N/K/A TGK
STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation;
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB
INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A
WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation;
THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; WOLF’S IRRIGATIONS &
LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation;
SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida
corporation; BROWN + COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company,
Crossclaim Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. a
Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE,
INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH
MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation;
PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL
FLORIDA, INC. N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a
Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS &
FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a
Florida corporation; WOLF’S IRRIGATIONS &
LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation;
EXPERT PAINTING & WASHING, INC., a
Florida corporation
Crossclaim Defendants.
_________________________________________/
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida Corporation
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a Florida
corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC.,
a Florida corporation; HELBERG
ENGERPRISES, LLC a Florida limited liability
company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; T&M
CONSTRUCTION OF SANFORD, INC., a
Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida limited
liability company; WELL DONE WINDOWS &
DOORS, LLC., a Florida limited liability
company; WELL HUNG WINDOWS &
DOORS, LLC., a Florida limited liability
company,
Third-Party
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
2
DEFENDANT/ CROSS CLAIM DEFENDANT, HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Defendant/ Cross Claim Defendant HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC. (“HMC”) by and through its undersigned counsel hereby files its
answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint filed by VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
Nature of the Case
1. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise denied.
3. Admitted for venue purposes only; otherwise denied.
4. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
5. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
6. Admitted for jurisdictional and venue purposes only; otherwise denied.
7. Denied.
8. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
Parties
9. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
10. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
11. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
12. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
13. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
14. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
15. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
3
16. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
17. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
18. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
19. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
20. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
21. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
22. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
23. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
24. Admitted.
25. Denied as phrased.
26. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
27. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
28. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
29. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
30. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
31. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
32. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
33. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
34. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
35. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
36. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
37. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
38. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
39. Denied as to HMC.
4
Facts Common to all Claims for Relief
40. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
41. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
42. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
43. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
44. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
45. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
46. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
47. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
48. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
49. Denied as to HMC.
50. Denied and all subparts denied as to HMC.
51. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
52. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
53. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
54. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
55. Denied and all subparts denied.
56. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
57. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
58. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
59. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
60. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
61. Denied as to HMC.
62. Denied as to HMC.
5
63. Denied and all subparts denied as to HMC.
64. Denied as to HMC.
65. Denied as to HMC.
66. Denied as to HMC.
Count I- Count XV
65.-177. These Counts are not addressed to HMC and, therefore, no
response is required of HMC. To the extent that this Court deems a response from
HMC is necessary to these allegations, they are denied.
Count XVI
(Violation of Florida Building Code-HMC)
178. HMC incorporates by reference and realleges the admissions, denials and
averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 66 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
179. Admitted as to HMC.
180. Florida Statute §553.84 speaks for itself, otherwise denied.
181. Admits to any duties imposed by law, but denies breach of same.
182. Denied.
183. Without knowledge, and therefore denied.
184. Denied.
185. Denied.
186. Denied.
WHEREFORE, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC. demands
judgment against PLAINTIFF, and such other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Count XVII
(Negligence- HMC)
6
187. HMC incorporates by reference and realleges the admissions, denials and
averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 66 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
188. Admitted.
189. Admitted.
190. Admits to any duties imposed by law, but denies breach of same.
191. Denied.
192. Denied.
WHEREFORE, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC. demands
judgment against PLAINTIFF, and such other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Count XVIII- Count XXIX
193.-285. These Counts are not addressed to HMC and, therefore, no
response is required of HMC. To the extent that this Court deems a response from
HMC is necessary to these allegations, they are denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims against HMC are barred or have otherwise been waived for the
following reasons:
a. The alleged defective workmanship of HMC was open and obvious to Royal Oak
Homes LLC (“Royal Oak”) at the time it accepted the work of HMC and/or paid
HMC for the work it performed.
b. Royal Oak had an affirmative obligation to direct, supervise, observe, coordinate,
and inspect the work of HMC and the other subcontractors. Royal Oak either
7
failed to perform its respective non-delegable duties and/or failed to advise HMC
of defects in its workmanship so that such defects could be corrected.
c. Royal Oak, while the Subject Property was still under its control, failed to properly
maintain it, to correct observed and known defects, or to direct HMC to correct
defects in its workmanship.
d. Royal Oak provided HMC with plans and specifications that lacked sufficient
details or were otherwise insufficient or defective to allow HMC to perform its
work in a non-defective and code compliant manner.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, in support of same.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That at the time and place complained of, Plaintiff was guilty of negligence which
was the legal cause of or contributed to the incident complained of and to the extent of
such negligence, Plaintiff is barred and estopped from any recovery in this cause or, in
the alternative, any recovery had must be reduced in accordance with the principles of
comparative negligence.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The alleged damages of Plaintiff should be reduced to the extent they failed to
mitigate damages. Upon first learning of the alleged construction defects, including
8
those purportedly caused by HMC, Plaintiff failed to correct such defects resulting in
increased damages and costs of repair.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent of any collateral sources paid or
payable. Further, Plaintiff’s alleged damages shall be reduced to set-off by any amounts
paid to Plaintiff by any third party, who has no right of subrogation, or by any party or
non-party to the litigation to settle claims with Plaintiff regarding the subject property.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
HMC was not guilty of any negligence and the alleged incident occurred through
the negligent acts and/or omissions of others and Royal Oak. Further, the damages
alleged by Plaintiff were caused by parties who were not acting under the authority or
right of control of HMC.
To the extent that any apportionment of liability or damages is necessary,
however, HMC affirmatively alleges the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 768.81 and interpreting
case law.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
SIXTH-AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by an unforeseeable, superseding
and/or intervening act over which HMC, had no control and for which they are not liable.
9
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, in support of same.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
HMC performed their work in accordance with the applicable plans,
specifications, and drawings.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The work performed by HMC was inspected and accepted by others, as well as
inspected and approved by the appropriate government agencies.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The damages claimed by the Plaintiff shall be reduced for any betterment.
Betterment includes without limitation repairing the alleged defective work of HMC with
materials that are superior in quality to the materials originally installed by HMC; utilizing
labor techniques, means, or methods, that are superior to the labor techniques, means
or methods utilized by HMC, the cost of warranties superior to those offer, if any, by
10
HMC; and the failure to account for the life expectancy of the materials originally
installed, if any, by HMC.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any work performed by HMC complied with industry standards applicable to such
work in the vicinity at the time.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any work performed by HMC, complied with the building code in effect for the
jurisdiction at the time.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
HMC provided a completed roof system, i.e., a “product.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
claims for damages to the product are barred by the economic loss rule.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Chapter 558,
Florida Statutes, including the failure to give HMC the opportunity to cure any defects
within the time prescribed by the statute.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Laches. More specifically, prior to
initiating this litigation Plaintiff knew or should have known defective workmanship
existed at the Subject Property, yet failed to take action to correct it resulting in greater
damages, including an increased cost of repair.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to spoliation of evidence, to the extent the
property was repaired and/or remediated and crucial evidence was destroyed, without
providing HMC an opportunity to inspect.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
HMC is not liable for the damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, because of intervening acts or causes which supersede any liability due to
the acts or conduct of HMC, such as: acts of God and extreme weather including,
without limitation Hurricane Irma, which impacted the Subject Property on or about
September 10, 2017; acts or omissions by the Plaintiff including without limitation failing
to maintain the Subject Property and failing to follow the recommendations of repair
contractors; and, the acts, omissions, of other contractors, subcontractors, third-party
12
contractors, design professionals, or any agents of Plaintiff who coordinated or
performed any work, repairs, or maintenance of the Subject Property.
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
HMC affirmatively alleges that, although it has denied liability to Plaintiff, any liability
found on the part of Ringers, and any damages awarded in favor of Plaintiff, are subject to
Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), and the Comparative Fault provisions §§
768.31 and 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. HMC is not responsible for the damages alleged, if any, to
the extent they were caused, in whole or in part, by other entities or non-parties. HMC
specifically identifies the following non-party entities whose comparative fault has caused,
in whole or in part, contributed to, or increased the Plaintiff’s alleged damages:
1. Advanced Wrapping and Concrete Solutions of Central Florida, Inc.
2. Don King’s Concrete, Inc.
3. Imperial Building Corporation
4. TGK Stucco, Inc.
5. Weathermaster Building Products, Inc.
6. Weintraub Inspections & Forensics n/k/a Weintraub Engineering and Inspections,
Inc.
7. Wolf’s Irrigation & Landscaping, Inc.
8. Brown + Company Architecture, Inc.
13
9. Expert Painting & Pressure Washing, Inc.
10. All Glass Installation Corp.
11. Casey Hawkins Glass, Inc.
12. Dean Nesbit, LLC
13. Helberg Enterprises, LLC
14. Hobbit Windows, LLC
15. T&M Construction of Sanford, Inc.
16. Well Done Windows, Inc.
17. Well Hung Windows & Doors, LLC
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the
deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition,
the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his
deposition in support of same. HMC reserves the right to identify additional culpable
parties through the course of discovery and to further amend this affirmative defense,
pursuant to Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678. So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1996).
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
HMC is entitled to a set off or reduction for the partial or complete expiration of the
intended and expected useful life of the allegedly defective building, building
components, and materials such as, without limitation, asphalt shingles, underlayment
materials, roofing cement, metal edge and flashing materials, exterior paint, and
sealants, because the Plaintiff enjoyed and retained the benefit of said building
components and materials from the completion of the Subject Property in 2016.
14
HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb,
the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his
deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as
exhibits to his deposition in support of same.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
HMC reserves any and all rights to supplement its answer and affirmative
defenses during the pendency of the ltigation.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in its favor, and for such other relief as
this Court deems just and proper. Defendant, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION,
INC., demands a jury trial on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP
DENISE M. ANDERSON, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 0029602
danderson@butler.legal
ASHLEY M. MATTINGLY, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 106094
amattingly@butler.legal
Secondary: bryan@butler.legal
rjorge@butler.legal
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 281-1900
Facsimile: (813) 281-0900
Counsel for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Hugh
MacDonald Construction, Inc.
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 11, 2024, the foregoing was electronically
filed with the Clerk of the Court by using E-Filing Portal, which will electronically serve
this document to all registered counsel of record.
Phillip E. Joseph, Esq. Lannie D. Hough Jr., Esq.
Evan J. Small, Esq. James Michael Walls, Esq.
Allana D.E. Smith, Esq. Brian C. Porter, Esq.
Jeffery A, Widelitz, Esq. Carlton Fields, P.A.
Ball Janik, LLP 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
201 E. Pine Street, Suite 600 Tampa, Florida 33607
Orlando, Florida 32801 mwalls@carltonfields.com
pjoseph@balljanik.com lhough@carltonfields.com
esmall@balljanik.com bporter@carltonfields.com
jwidelitz@balljanik.com ejohnson@carltonfields.com
asmith@balljanik.com nbonilla@carltonfields.com
ypalmer@balljanik.com bwoolard@carltonfields.com
cbetancourt@balljanik.com
bburton@balljanik.com Counsel for Royal Oak Homes, LLC
dmiksell@balljanik.com
orlandodocket@balljanik.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
Paul Sidney Elliott, Esq. Peter J. Kapsales, Esq.
P.O. Box 274204 Margaret M. Efta, Esq.
Tampa, FL 33688-4204 Milne Law Group, P.A.
pse@psejd.com 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 525
Orlando, FL 32801
Counsel for Hugh MacDonald pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com
Construction, Inc. mefta@milnelawgroup.com
mmilne@milnelawgroup.com
eservice@milnelawgroup.com
Counsel for Weathermaster Building
Products, Inc.
Thamir A.R. Kaddouri Jr., Esq. Timothy C. Ford, Esq.
Penelope T. Rowlett, Esq. Andrew E. Holway, Esq.
Beth Ann Tobey, Esq. Rocco Cafaro, Esq.
Law Office of Thamir A.R. Kaddouri, Jr., Hill Ward Henderson
P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
3220 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Tampa, FL 33607 tim.ford@hwhlaw.com
16
Thamir.Kaddouri@tampalaw.org andrew.holway@hwhlaw.com
Service@TampaLaw.org rocco.cafaro@hwhlaw.com
Beth.Tobey@tampalaw.org tracy.coale@hwhlaw.com
Penelope.rowlett@tampalaw.org kathy.wernsing@hwhlaw.com
derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com
Counsel for Imperial Building
Corporation Counsel for Weintraub Inspections &
Forensics, Inc. f/k/a Weintraub
Engineering and Inspections, Inc.
Jayne Ann Pittman, Esq. Bruce R. Calderon, Esq.
Natalie C. Fischer, Esq. Alicia Z. Gross, Esq.
Conroy Simberg Barri A. Reisch, Esq.
Two South Orange Ave, Suite 300 Michael Lynott, Esq.
Orlando, Florida 32801 Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP
eserviceorl@conroysimberg.com 1900 NW Corporate Blvd, East Tower,
jpittman@conroysimberg.com Suite 440
mmaitland@conroysimberg.com Boca Raton, Florida 33431
nfischer@conroysimberg.com bcalderon@milbermakris.com
agross@milbermakris.com
Counsel for Advanced Wrapping and breisch@milbermakris.com
Concrete Solutions of Central Florida, kmcdowell@milbermakris.com
Inc. sskowronski@milbermakris.com
Counsel for Brown + Company
Architecture, Inc.
Scott Ross, Esq. M. Austin Moretz, Esq.
Groelle & Salmon, P.A. Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr and
1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 320 Smith, PLC
Tampa, FL 33607 21 E. Garden Street First Floor
gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com Pensacola, FL 32502
sross@gspalaw.com jmgservice@gallowaylawfirm.com
cebanks@gspalaw.com moretzservice@gallowaylawfirm.com
Counsel for Helberg Enterprises, LLC Counsel for Hobbit Windows, LLC
Cole J. Copertino, Esq. Phillip S. Howell, Esq.
James Michael Moorhead, Esq. Brenden C. Collins, Esq,
Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A. Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr &
505 Maitland Avenue, Suite 1000 Smith, P.L.C.
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 400 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 1000
ccopertino@wfmblaw.com Tampa, Florida 33602
mmoorhead@wfmblaw.com tampaservice@gallowaylawfirm.com
cbraungart@wfmblaw.com phowell@gallowaylawfirm.com
jgarcia@wfbmlaw.com bcollins@gallowaylawfirm.com
17
Counsel for Well Hung Windows & Counsel for Casey Hawkins Glass, Inc.
Doors, LLC
Jennifer Shippole, Esq. Andrew T. Marshall, Esq.
Monal O. Zipper, Esq. Sara W. Mapes, Esq.
Law Office of Jennifer L. Shippole Hamilton, Price & Marshall, P.A.
14050 NW 14th Street, Suite 180 2400 Manatee Ave. W.
Sunrise, FL 33323 Bradenton, FL 34205
pleadings@fednat.com Andrew@hamiltonpricelaw.com
mzipper@fednat.com Nancy@hamiltonpricelaw.com
jshippole@fednat.com Kelsey@hamiltonpricelaw.com
Sara@hamiltonpricelaw.com
Counsel for Atlantic Concrete Systems, atmservice@hamiltonpricelaw.com
Inc.
Counsel for T&M Construction of
Sanford, Inc.
Wayne M. Alder, Esq. Chesley G. Moody, Jr. Esq.
Fisher Broyles, LLP Mai M. Lee, Esq.
7668 NW 125th Way Moody & Graf, P.A.
Pompano Beach, FL 33076 1101 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 200
wayne.alder@fisherbroyles.com Maitland, FL 32751
wmalder@bellsouth.net cmoody@moodygraf.com
mle@moodygraf.com
cbuhler@moodygraf.com
Counsel for E.R.O. Construction, Inc. kbraund@moodygraf.com
iperera@moodygraf.com
Counsel for L & Jim Painting, Inc. and
Wolfs Irrigation & Landscaping, Inc.
Eric J. Netcher, Esq. William M. Woods, Esq.
Walker, Revels, Greninger & Netcher, PLLC Joseph M. Cline, Esq.
189 S. Orange Ave., Suite 1830 Woods Law Group
Orlando, FL 32801 100 S. Missouri Avenue, Suite 201
enetcher@wrgn-law.com Clearwater, FL 33756
hpaymayesh@wrgn-law.com wwoods@woodslawgroupfl.com
josephC@woodslawgroupfl.com
Counsel for All Glass Installation Corp. marital@woodslawgroupfl.com
shronmg@woodslawgroupfl.com
Pleadings@woodslawgroupfl.com
Co-Counsel for T&M Construction of
Sanford, Inc. and All Glass Installation
Corp.
18
Jackeline Rodriguez, Esq. Kieran F. O'Connor, Esq.
Kira Tsiring, Esq. Elizabeth Droz-Stolinas, Esq.
Hamilton, Miller & Birsthisel, LLP Gregory E. Blackwell, Esq.
150 Southeast Second Ave., Suite 1200 O’Connor & Stolinas Law Group, PLLC
Miami, FL 33131-2332 800 North Magnolia Avenue, Ste 1350
jrodriguez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com Orlando, FL 32803
ktsiring@hamiltonmillerlaw.com koconnor@oconlaw.com
mprieto@hamiltonmillerlaw.com edroz-stolinas@oconlaw.com
vbain@hamiltonmillerlaw.com gblackwell@oconlaw.com
rps@oconlaw.com
Counsel for TGK Stucco, Inc. tclark@oconlaw.com
Counsel For Expert Painting &
Pressure Washing, Inc.
ASHLEY M. MATTINGLY, ESQ.
19
Preview
Filing # 193693189 E-Filed 03/11/2024 08:24:17 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation; Plaintiff, Case No.: 2020-CA-002942 v. ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; WOLF’S IRRIGATIONS & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendants. _________________________________________/ ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Crossclaim Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. a Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; WOLF’S IRRIGATIONS & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation Crossclaim Defendants. _________________________________________/ WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida Corporation Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a Florida corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; HELBERG ENGERPRISES, LLC a Florida limited liability company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida limited liability company; WELL DONE WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC., a Florida limited liability company; WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, Third-Party Defendants. _________________________________________/ 2 DEFENDANT/ CROSS CLAIM DEFENDANT, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Defendant/ Cross Claim Defendant HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC. (“HMC”) by and through its undersigned counsel hereby files its answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint filed by VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (“Plaintiff”) as follows: Nature of the Case 1. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise denied. 3. Admitted for venue purposes only; otherwise denied. 4. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 5. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 6. Admitted for jurisdictional and venue purposes only; otherwise denied. 7. Denied. 8. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. Parties 9. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 10. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 11. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 12. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 13. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 14. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 15. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 3 16. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 17. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 18. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 19. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 20. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 21. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 22. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 23. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 24. Admitted. 25. Denied as phrased. 26. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 27. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 28. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 29. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 30. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 31. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 32. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 33. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 34. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 35. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 36. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 37. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 38. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 39. Denied as to HMC. 4 Facts Common to all Claims for Relief 40. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 41. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 42. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 43. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 44. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 45. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 46. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 47. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 48. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 49. Denied as to HMC. 50. Denied and all subparts denied as to HMC. 51. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 52. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 53. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 54. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 55. Denied and all subparts denied. 56. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 57. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 58. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 59. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 60. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 61. Denied as to HMC. 62. Denied as to HMC. 5 63. Denied and all subparts denied as to HMC. 64. Denied as to HMC. 65. Denied as to HMC. 66. Denied as to HMC. Count I- Count XV 65.-177. These Counts are not addressed to HMC and, therefore, no response is required of HMC. To the extent that this Court deems a response from HMC is necessary to these allegations, they are denied. Count XVI (Violation of Florida Building Code-HMC) 178. HMC incorporates by reference and realleges the admissions, denials and averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 66 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 179. Admitted as to HMC. 180. Florida Statute §553.84 speaks for itself, otherwise denied. 181. Admits to any duties imposed by law, but denies breach of same. 182. Denied. 183. Without knowledge, and therefore denied. 184. Denied. 185. Denied. 186. Denied. WHEREFORE, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC. demands judgment against PLAINTIFF, and such other relief this Court deems just and proper. Count XVII (Negligence- HMC) 6 187. HMC incorporates by reference and realleges the admissions, denials and averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 66 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 188. Admitted. 189. Admitted. 190. Admits to any duties imposed by law, but denies breach of same. 191. Denied. 192. Denied. WHEREFORE, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC. demands judgment against PLAINTIFF, and such other relief this Court deems just and proper. Count XVIII- Count XXIX 193.-285. These Counts are not addressed to HMC and, therefore, no response is required of HMC. To the extent that this Court deems a response from HMC is necessary to these allegations, they are denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims against HMC are barred or have otherwise been waived for the following reasons: a. The alleged defective workmanship of HMC was open and obvious to Royal Oak Homes LLC (“Royal Oak”) at the time it accepted the work of HMC and/or paid HMC for the work it performed. b. Royal Oak had an affirmative obligation to direct, supervise, observe, coordinate, and inspect the work of HMC and the other subcontractors. Royal Oak either 7 failed to perform its respective non-delegable duties and/or failed to advise HMC of defects in its workmanship so that such defects could be corrected. c. Royal Oak, while the Subject Property was still under its control, failed to properly maintain it, to correct observed and known defects, or to direct HMC to correct defects in its workmanship. d. Royal Oak provided HMC with plans and specifications that lacked sufficient details or were otherwise insufficient or defective to allow HMC to perform its work in a non-defective and code compliant manner. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, in support of same. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That at the time and place complained of, Plaintiff was guilty of negligence which was the legal cause of or contributed to the incident complained of and to the extent of such negligence, Plaintiff is barred and estopped from any recovery in this cause or, in the alternative, any recovery had must be reduced in accordance with the principles of comparative negligence. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The alleged damages of Plaintiff should be reduced to the extent they failed to mitigate damages. Upon first learning of the alleged construction defects, including 8 those purportedly caused by HMC, Plaintiff failed to correct such defects resulting in increased damages and costs of repair. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent of any collateral sources paid or payable. Further, Plaintiff’s alleged damages shall be reduced to set-off by any amounts paid to Plaintiff by any third party, who has no right of subrogation, or by any party or non-party to the litigation to settle claims with Plaintiff regarding the subject property. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HMC was not guilty of any negligence and the alleged incident occurred through the negligent acts and/or omissions of others and Royal Oak. Further, the damages alleged by Plaintiff were caused by parties who were not acting under the authority or right of control of HMC. To the extent that any apportionment of liability or damages is necessary, however, HMC affirmatively alleges the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 768.81 and interpreting case law. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. SIXTH-AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by an unforeseeable, superseding and/or intervening act over which HMC, had no control and for which they are not liable. 9 HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, in support of same. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HMC performed their work in accordance with the applicable plans, specifications, and drawings. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The work performed by HMC was inspected and accepted by others, as well as inspected and approved by the appropriate government agencies. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The damages claimed by the Plaintiff shall be reduced for any betterment. Betterment includes without limitation repairing the alleged defective work of HMC with materials that are superior in quality to the materials originally installed by HMC; utilizing labor techniques, means, or methods, that are superior to the labor techniques, means or methods utilized by HMC, the cost of warranties superior to those offer, if any, by 10 HMC; and the failure to account for the life expectancy of the materials originally installed, if any, by HMC. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any work performed by HMC complied with industry standards applicable to such work in the vicinity at the time. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any work performed by HMC, complied with the building code in effect for the jurisdiction at the time. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HMC provided a completed roof system, i.e., a “product.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for damages to the product are barred by the economic loss rule. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Chapter 558, Florida Statutes, including the failure to give HMC the opportunity to cure any defects within the time prescribed by the statute. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Laches. More specifically, prior to initiating this litigation Plaintiff knew or should have known defective workmanship existed at the Subject Property, yet failed to take action to correct it resulting in greater damages, including an increased cost of repair. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to spoliation of evidence, to the extent the property was repaired and/or remediated and crucial evidence was destroyed, without providing HMC an opportunity to inspect. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HMC is not liable for the damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, because of intervening acts or causes which supersede any liability due to the acts or conduct of HMC, such as: acts of God and extreme weather including, without limitation Hurricane Irma, which impacted the Subject Property on or about September 10, 2017; acts or omissions by the Plaintiff including without limitation failing to maintain the Subject Property and failing to follow the recommendations of repair contractors; and, the acts, omissions, of other contractors, subcontractors, third-party 12 contractors, design professionals, or any agents of Plaintiff who coordinated or performed any work, repairs, or maintenance of the Subject Property. HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HMC affirmatively alleges that, although it has denied liability to Plaintiff, any liability found on the part of Ringers, and any damages awarded in favor of Plaintiff, are subject to Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), and the Comparative Fault provisions §§ 768.31 and 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. HMC is not responsible for the damages alleged, if any, to the extent they were caused, in whole or in part, by other entities or non-parties. HMC specifically identifies the following non-party entities whose comparative fault has caused, in whole or in part, contributed to, or increased the Plaintiff’s alleged damages: 1. Advanced Wrapping and Concrete Solutions of Central Florida, Inc. 2. Don King’s Concrete, Inc. 3. Imperial Building Corporation 4. TGK Stucco, Inc. 5. Weathermaster Building Products, Inc. 6. Weintraub Inspections & Forensics n/k/a Weintraub Engineering and Inspections, Inc. 7. Wolf’s Irrigation & Landscaping, Inc. 8. Brown + Company Architecture, Inc. 13 9. Expert Painting & Pressure Washing, Inc. 10. All Glass Installation Corp. 11. Casey Hawkins Glass, Inc. 12. Dean Nesbit, LLC 13. Helberg Enterprises, LLC 14. Hobbit Windows, LLC 15. T&M Construction of Sanford, Inc. 16. Well Done Windows, Inc. 17. Well Hung Windows & Doors, LLC HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. HMC reserves the right to identify additional culpable parties through the course of discovery and to further amend this affirmative defense, pursuant to Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678. So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1996). EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HMC is entitled to a set off or reduction for the partial or complete expiration of the intended and expected useful life of the allegedly defective building, building components, and materials such as, without limitation, asphalt shingles, underlayment materials, roofing cement, metal edge and flashing materials, exterior paint, and sealants, because the Plaintiff enjoyed and retained the benefit of said building components and materials from the completion of the Subject Property in 2016. 14 HMC hereby incorporates by reference the report of its expert, Robert Whitcomb, the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, as well as exhibits to his deposition, the deposition transcript of Royal Oak expert, Brett Newkirk, as well as exhibits to his deposition in support of same. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS HMC reserves any and all rights to supplement its answer and affirmative defenses during the pendency of the ltigation. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in its favor, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Defendant, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., demands a jury trial on all issues so triable as a matter of right. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP DENISE M. ANDERSON, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0029602 danderson@butler.legal ASHLEY M. MATTINGLY, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 106094 amattingly@butler.legal Secondary: bryan@butler.legal rjorge@butler.legal 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 281-1900 Facsimile: (813) 281-0900 Counsel for Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant Hugh MacDonald Construction, Inc. 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 11, 2024, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using E-Filing Portal, which will electronically serve this document to all registered counsel of record. Phillip E. Joseph, Esq. Lannie D. Hough Jr., Esq. Evan J. Small, Esq. James Michael Walls, Esq. Allana D.E. Smith, Esq. Brian C. Porter, Esq. Jeffery A, Widelitz, Esq. Carlton Fields, P.A. Ball Janik, LLP 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000 201 E. Pine Street, Suite 600 Tampa, Florida 33607 Orlando, Florida 32801 mwalls@carltonfields.com pjoseph@balljanik.com lhough@carltonfields.com esmall@balljanik.com bporter@carltonfields.com jwidelitz@balljanik.com ejohnson@carltonfields.com asmith@balljanik.com nbonilla@carltonfields.com ypalmer@balljanik.com bwoolard@carltonfields.com cbetancourt@balljanik.com bburton@balljanik.com Counsel for Royal Oak Homes, LLC dmiksell@balljanik.com orlandodocket@balljanik.com Counsel for Plaintiff Paul Sidney Elliott, Esq. Peter J. Kapsales, Esq. P.O. Box 274204 Margaret M. Efta, Esq. Tampa, FL 33688-4204 Milne Law Group, P.A. pse@psejd.com 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 525 Orlando, FL 32801 Counsel for Hugh MacDonald pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com Construction, Inc. mefta@milnelawgroup.com mmilne@milnelawgroup.com eservice@milnelawgroup.com Counsel for Weathermaster Building Products, Inc. Thamir A.R. Kaddouri Jr., Esq. Timothy C. Ford, Esq. Penelope T. Rowlett, Esq. Andrew E. Holway, Esq. Beth Ann Tobey, Esq. Rocco Cafaro, Esq. Law Office of Thamir A.R. Kaddouri, Jr., Hill Ward Henderson P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700 3220 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Tampa, FL 33607 tim.ford@hwhlaw.com 16 Thamir.Kaddouri@tampalaw.org andrew.holway@hwhlaw.com Service@TampaLaw.org rocco.cafaro@hwhlaw.com Beth.Tobey@tampalaw.org tracy.coale@hwhlaw.com Penelope.rowlett@tampalaw.org kathy.wernsing@hwhlaw.com derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com Counsel for Imperial Building Corporation Counsel for Weintraub Inspections & Forensics, Inc. f/k/a Weintraub Engineering and Inspections, Inc. Jayne Ann Pittman, Esq. Bruce R. Calderon, Esq. Natalie C. Fischer, Esq. Alicia Z. Gross, Esq. Conroy Simberg Barri A. Reisch, Esq. Two South Orange Ave, Suite 300 Michael Lynott, Esq. Orlando, Florida 32801 Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP eserviceorl@conroysimberg.com 1900 NW Corporate Blvd, East Tower, jpittman@conroysimberg.com Suite 440 mmaitland@conroysimberg.com Boca Raton, Florida 33431 nfischer@conroysimberg.com bcalderon@milbermakris.com agross@milbermakris.com Counsel for Advanced Wrapping and breisch@milbermakris.com Concrete Solutions of Central Florida, kmcdowell@milbermakris.com Inc. sskowronski@milbermakris.com Counsel for Brown + Company Architecture, Inc. Scott Ross, Esq. M. Austin Moretz, Esq. Groelle & Salmon, P.A. Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr and 1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 320 Smith, PLC Tampa, FL 33607 21 E. Garden Street First Floor gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com Pensacola, FL 32502 sross@gspalaw.com jmgservice@gallowaylawfirm.com cebanks@gspalaw.com moretzservice@gallowaylawfirm.com Counsel for Helberg Enterprises, LLC Counsel for Hobbit Windows, LLC Cole J. Copertino, Esq. Phillip S. Howell, Esq. James Michael Moorhead, Esq. Brenden C. Collins, Esq, Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A. Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & 505 Maitland Avenue, Suite 1000 Smith, P.L.C. Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 400 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 1000 ccopertino@wfmblaw.com Tampa, Florida 33602 mmoorhead@wfmblaw.com tampaservice@gallowaylawfirm.com cbraungart@wfmblaw.com phowell@gallowaylawfirm.com jgarcia@wfbmlaw.com bcollins@gallowaylawfirm.com 17 Counsel for Well Hung Windows & Counsel for Casey Hawkins Glass, Inc. Doors, LLC Jennifer Shippole, Esq. Andrew T. Marshall, Esq. Monal O. Zipper, Esq. Sara W. Mapes, Esq. Law Office of Jennifer L. Shippole Hamilton, Price & Marshall, P.A. 14050 NW 14th Street, Suite 180 2400 Manatee Ave. W. Sunrise, FL 33323 Bradenton, FL 34205 pleadings@fednat.com Andrew@hamiltonpricelaw.com mzipper@fednat.com Nancy@hamiltonpricelaw.com jshippole@fednat.com Kelsey@hamiltonpricelaw.com Sara@hamiltonpricelaw.com Counsel for Atlantic Concrete Systems, atmservice@hamiltonpricelaw.com Inc. Counsel for T&M Construction of Sanford, Inc. Wayne M. Alder, Esq. Chesley G. Moody, Jr. Esq. Fisher Broyles, LLP Mai M. Lee, Esq. 7668 NW 125th Way Moody & Graf, P.A. Pompano Beach, FL 33076 1101 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 200 wayne.alder@fisherbroyles.com Maitland, FL 32751 wmalder@bellsouth.net cmoody@moodygraf.com mle@moodygraf.com cbuhler@moodygraf.com Counsel for E.R.O. Construction, Inc. kbraund@moodygraf.com iperera@moodygraf.com Counsel for L & Jim Painting, Inc. and Wolfs Irrigation & Landscaping, Inc. Eric J. Netcher, Esq. William M. Woods, Esq. Walker, Revels, Greninger & Netcher, PLLC Joseph M. Cline, Esq. 189 S. Orange Ave., Suite 1830 Woods Law Group Orlando, FL 32801 100 S. Missouri Avenue, Suite 201 enetcher@wrgn-law.com Clearwater, FL 33756 hpaymayesh@wrgn-law.com wwoods@woodslawgroupfl.com josephC@woodslawgroupfl.com Counsel for All Glass Installation Corp. marital@woodslawgroupfl.com shronmg@woodslawgroupfl.com Pleadings@woodslawgroupfl.com Co-Counsel for T&M Construction of Sanford, Inc. and All Glass Installation Corp. 18 Jackeline Rodriguez, Esq. Kieran F. O'Connor, Esq. Kira Tsiring, Esq. Elizabeth Droz-Stolinas, Esq. Hamilton, Miller & Birsthisel, LLP Gregory E. Blackwell, Esq. 150 Southeast Second Ave., Suite 1200 O’Connor & Stolinas Law Group, PLLC Miami, FL 33131-2332 800 North Magnolia Avenue, Ste 1350 jrodriguez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com Orlando, FL 32803 ktsiring@hamiltonmillerlaw.com koconnor@oconlaw.com mprieto@hamiltonmillerlaw.com edroz-stolinas@oconlaw.com vbain@hamiltonmillerlaw.com gblackwell@oconlaw.com rps@oconlaw.com Counsel for TGK Stucco, Inc. tclark@oconlaw.com Counsel For Expert Painting & Pressure Washing, Inc. ASHLEY M. MATTINGLY, ESQ. 19