Broward County Jury Limits Precast Subcontractor to 0.5% of $8.6 Million Construction Defect Verdict

CSK Defense Team
West Palm Beach Associate Bianca Antonelli
Miami Partner George Truitt 

Case Summary
The Plaintiff, a subsequent purchaser of a newly-built Broward County apartment complex, sued the developer and general contractor for more than $8.6 million in estimated repair costs for defects including HVAC stands, exterior stucco, handrails, roof canopies, and concrete in the parking garage and balconies. The developer and general contractor filed third-party claims against the precast concrete subcontractor — CSK’s client — seeking to pass through liability for the concrete-related damages.

Defense Strategy
The CSK Defense Team rested on three arguments:

1. Express subcontract exclusions placed substantial categories of the concrete repair costs outside the client’s scope entirely
2. The precast subcontractor did not perform all concrete work in the garage or balconies — other subcontractors worked in both areas.
3. The developer value engineered the garage to eliminate waterproofing of the deck.

The Plaintiff’s damage model presented only two aggregated concrete repair line items, one for the garage and one for the balconies, with no breakdown by trade. The developer and general contractor could not identify any non-speculative subset of the concrete line items attributable to the precast sub’s specific scope, as opposed to the work of others in the same locations, and they could not attribute the missing garage deck waterproofing to any subcontractor.

Outcome
After a jury trial, the jury limited the precast subcontractor’s exposure to $41,000 — just 0.5% of the $8.6 million total verdict — while apportioning the remaining 99.5% of damages  on the developer and general contractor. The result illustrates a critical principle in multi-trade construction disputes: where multiple subcontractors perform work on the same work divisions, the third-party plaintiff relying on Plaintiff’s damage model must isolate a non-speculative, scope-specific subset of damages attributable to the third-party defendant subcontractor’s scope of work or risk losing the apportionment argument entirely.

Following the verdict, the CSK Defense Team filed post-trial motions challenging the award. Shortly thereafter, the third-party claims against the precast subcontractor settled with no damages paid by CSK’s client, dismissals of third-party claims with prejudice, and each party bearing its own fees and costs.