My Portfolio (0) A Client-Centered Commitment to Excellence

Innovative Advocacy for Our Clients.

Construction Law and Litigation

Our attorneys are regularly engaged in the construction processes throughout the southeastern United States. The Firm and its attorneys have been at the forefront of the resolution of construction disputes for both governmental and private interests. We regularly represent contractors, governmental entities, owners, developers, sureties, manufacturers and designers in all phases of the construction process, from document preparation through project close out and any resulting litigation. Simply put, there are no finer construction attorneys with more well-rounded experience in all phases of the process. Our attorneys are regularly engaged by both governmental and private interests to prepare construction documents, assist and advise in the procurement process, handle bid protests, provide advice and consultation during the construction of the project and provide any necessary arbitration or litigation services required to effect the project close out.

 

 

 

 

Recent News

Florida Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Florida Legislature’s Daubert Amendment
For many years Florida followed the Frye standard for the admissibility of expert testimony based upon new or novel scientific evidence.  See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).   In 2013, the Florida Legislature, through what has been dubbed the Daubert Amendment, replaced the Frye standard with the Daubert standard.  The Daubert standard stems from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which established the federal court standard for expert testimony.  Since then, federal courts have continued to apply the Daubert standard, and 36 states have adopted the Daubert standard.

Read More

October 21, 2013
Motor Vehicle Dealer Bonds: Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal Punts on Attorneys' Fees Issue

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently had the opportunity to provide much needed guidance on the issue of whether a statutory motor vehicle dealer bond caps the surety’s liability for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees at the penal sum of the bond.  Unfortunately, the court found another issue to be dispositive and declined to rule on the attorneys’ fees issue. 

Read More

October 21, 2013