throbber
Filing # 196107211 E-Filed 04/12/2024 03:21:49 PM
`
`IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE
`15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
`PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO.: 50-2024-CC-002958-XXXA-SB
`
`COVE CAPITAL, LLC, DBA FLOOR
`COVERINGS INTERNATIONAL BOCA
`RATON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ROBERT SCHNEIDER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`/
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`Defendant, ROBERT SCHNEIDER (“Defendant*y by and through his undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby Answers the Complaint filed herein by Plaintiff, COVE CAPITAL, LLC,
`
`DBA FLOOR COVERINGS INTERNATIONAL BOCA RATON(‘Plaintiff’), and states:
`
`ANSWER
`
`1.
`
`In response (to the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint, Plaintiff purports to assert an action for equitable relief, or alternatively for
`
`damagesof $36417.05, plus interest and attorney's fees and costs, but Defendant denies
`
`that Piaintiff has\done so or that Defendant has anyliability to Plaintiff and demands strict
`
`proof thereof.
`
`2.
`
`in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint, Plaintiff purports to assert that venue lies in Palm Beach County, Florida,
`
`becauseall events giving rise to its cause of action took place there, but Defendant denies
`
`that it has anyliability to Plaintiff and each and every remaining allegation and inference
`
`Page 1 of 25
`
`FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 04/12/2024 03:21:49 PM
`FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 04/12/2024 03:21:49 PM
`
`

`

`contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge as to each and every allegation contained
`
`in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and demands strict
`
`proof thereof.
`
`a. Defendant is without knowledge as to each and every allegation contained
`
`in paragraph 3a of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore deniesesame and
`
`demands strict proof thereof.
`
`b. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3b of Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint to the extent that he is over the age.of T8-and a resident of Palm
`
`Beach County, Florida, but denies each andkevery remaining allegation or
`
`inference contained therein and demand )strict proof thereof.
`
`4,
`
`Defendant denies each and-eVery“allegation contained in paragraph 4 of
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands striet proof thereof.
`
`a
`
`Defendant deniesach and every allegation contained in paragraph 5 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint to the extent that Plaintiff refers to 808 Seagrass Drive, otherwise
`
`Defendant admits sucheallegations to the extent that Plaintiff meant to refer to 808
`
`Seasage Drive.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant admits each and every allegation contained in paragraph 6 of
`
`Plaintiffs=@omplaint to the extent that on or around September 7, 2023, Defendant
`
`engaged Plaintiff to remove existing flooring and install new tile on outdoor balconies
`
`located at the Property, but denies each and every remaining allegation and demands
`
`strict proof thereof.
`
`Page 2 of 25
`
`

`

`7.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 7 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 8 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`9.
`
`In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint, Defendant refers Plaintiff to the original contract, the terms of whieh speak for
`
`themselves, but otherwise denies anyliability thereunder and each and @very remaining
`
`allegation and inference and demandsstrict proof thereof.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant denies each and every aliegation.containéd in paragraph 10 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands strict proof thereof:
`
`11.
`
`Defendant denies each and every-allegation contained in paragraph 11 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demandsstrict prooftthereof.
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`12.
`
`Defendant denies each-and every allegation contained in paragraph 12 of
`
`Plaintiff's Complaint and demands stri¢tproof thereof.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 13 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint andedemands strict proof thereof.
`
`14.
`
`In/tesponse to the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint, (Defendant refers Plaintiff to the final invoice, the terms of which speak for
`
`themsélvespbut otherwise denies that Defendant agreed to its terms and each and every
`
`remaining allegation and inference and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 15 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 16 of
`
`Page 3 of 25
`
`

`

`Plaintiff's Complaint and demandsstrict proof thereof.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 17 of
`
`Plaintiff's Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant is without knowledge as to each and every allegation contained
`
`in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and demands strict
`
`proof thereof.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant readopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 18 of his Answer herein in response to paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegationacontained in paragraph 20 of
`
`Plaintiff's Complaint and demandsstrict proof thereof.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant denies each and €very allegation contained in paragraph 21 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands striet proof thereof.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant denies@ach and every allegation contained in paragraph 22 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands Strict proof thereof.
`
`23.
`
`Defendantedenies each and every ailegation contained in paragraph 23 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and’demands strict proof thereof.
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`24.(Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 24 of
`
`PlaintiféssGomplaint and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 25 of
`
`Plaintiff's Complaint and demandsstrict proof thereof.
`
`26.
`
`Defendantis without knowledge as to each and every allegation contained
`
`in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and demands strict
`
`Page 4 of 25
`
`

`

`proof thereof.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant readopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 26 of his Answer herein in response to paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint to the extent of the relationship, but denies that Plaintiff made. valuable
`
`improvements and each and every remaining allegation and inference.contained in said
`
`paragraph and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation.containéd in paragraph 29 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant denies each and everyallegation contained in paragraph 30 of
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint and demandsstrict préofttheteof.
`
`31.
`
`In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint, Defendant admits that Defendant delivered $40,000.00 to Plaintiff, but denies
`
`that Plaintiff was entitled to such’payment, that it is indebted to Plaintiff or that the
`
`remaining amount of $36,417.05 alleged to be due is owed and demands strict proof
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`thereof.
`
`32.(Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 32 of
`
`PlaintiffssGemplaint and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint which has not been specifically admitted herein.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`34.
`
`As and for Defendant's First Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Page 5 of 25
`
`

`

`Plaintiff is barred from seeking damages against him byvirtue of its breach of contract.
`
`More particularly, Plaintiff:
`
`a.
`
`failed to furnish proper supervision and sufficient labor to timely complete
`
`the work and project whichis the subject of the action herein;
`
`.
`
`failed to furnish and use proper and/or substandard materials for
`
`incorporation into the Project,
`
`including but not
`
`limited to™—Rhinset and
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Redguard waterproofing membrane;
`
`failed to timely commence such work;
`
`furnished substandard, defective or incomplete, fabor and workmanship
`
`including but not limited to failing to grout the flooring whendry,failing to
`
`seal the edgesof the balconyflooring Yailing to secure the drain covers and
`
`failing to install the flooring wittthe properelevations;
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`.
`
`failed to complete the Werk in accordancewith the contract documents, the
`
`Florida Building Ceéde.and/or industry standards;
`
`overcharged far work’never undertaken and materials never delivered to or
`
`incorporated into the subject project; and
`
`.
`
`failed to pull permits for that portion of the work for which permits were
`
`needed.
`
`35:
`
`As and for Defendant's Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichmentis barred by virtue of the assertion by Plaintiff of a
`
`legal remedy in the form of an action for breach of contract.
`
`36.
`
`As and for Defendant's Third Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff is barred from seeking damages against him byvirtueofits failure to mitigateits
`
`Page 6 of 25
`
`

`

`damages. Plaintiff knew of the existing roof system under the balconyflooring, yet still
`
`took on the project claiming its expertise in removing old flooring with such condition and
`
`waterproofing beneath the new flooring with Redguard waterproofing membrane.
`
`Plaintiffs lack of such experience should have precludedit from undertaking the project.
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiff furnished and/or purchased Redguard waterproofing membranefor
`
`more than the one balcony for whichit was approved and could have avoided incurring
`
`the additional cost for Redguard to be used on other balconies for which ifwas not proper.
`
`Lastly, Plaintiff failed to remedy defects and deficiencies in~thé work and failed to
`
`undertake such workin a diligent and workmanlike manner.whichewould have prevented
`
`Defendant from being damaged.
`
`37.
`
`As and for Defendant's Fourth Affirmative’7Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff is barred from seeking damages againstit as a result of its unclean hands as
`
`moreaffirmatively set forth in its Affirmative'Befenses and Counterclaim filed herein .
`
`38.
`
`As and for Defendant's Fifth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that by
`
`virtue of Plaintiffs conduct as more’fully set forth herein, Defendantis entitled to a set off
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`from any sums found due. Plaintiff.
`
`39.
`
`Aséand for Defendant's Sixth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff is barred from seeking damages against him byvirtue ofits breach of the implied
`
`warranties.of merchantability and fitness for the intended purpose which have not been
`
`specifically disclaimed.
`
`40.
`
`As and for Defendant's Seventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff is barred from seeking damages againstit by virtue of a failure of consideration.
`
`More particularly, Plaintiff failed to furnish labor, materials and supplies for which
`
`Page 7 of 25
`
`

`

`Defendant paid consideration and certain labor, materials and supplies furnished by
`
`Plaintiff were defective, deficient or improper such that they had a value less than that
`
`paid by Defendant or no valueat all.
`
`41.
`
`As and for Defendant's Eighth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff has waivedits right to seek damages against him byvirtue of its knowing failure
`
`fo furnish all labor, materials and supplies in accordance with the terms of thescontract for
`
`the project which is the subject of the action herein.
`
`42.
`
`As and for Defendant’s Ninth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff is estopped from seeking damages against him by.virtue*otits intentionalfailure
`
`to complete work in a timely and workmanlike manner and‘furnish all labor, materials and
`
`supplies required as well as its provision of defective and deficient labor, materials and
`
`supplies. More particularly, Plaintiff informed Befendantthat it could complete the subject
`
`work by a date certain and that it had experience installing flooring over existing roof
`
`systems. As a result, Defendant reliedpupon Plaintiffs representations and conduct and
`
`engaged Plaintiff to do so.
`
`\In fact, Plaintiff had little experience doing so, and retained
`
`others to assist who likewise furnished defective labor, materials and supplies on its
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`behalf.
`
`43.(As\and for Defendant's Tenth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiff'seelaims are barred byvirtue of its negligencein furnishingits labor, materials and
`
`supplies to undertake the subject project. More specifically, Plaintiff owed a duty to
`
`Plaintiff to furnish labor, materials and supplies in accordance with the standard of care
`
`used by similar contractors, in the same locale under similar circumstances, consistent
`
`with all applicable building codes, sound construction industry standards, and free from
`
`Page 8 of 25
`
`

`

`defects and deficiencies. Plaintiff also owed a duty to Defendant to supervise and
`
`coordinate the subject work and protect the residence from damages due it. Plaintiff
`
`breachedits duties owed to Defendant, thereby causing Defendant to suffer damages.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff is not entitled to damages soughtin its Complaint filed in the action
`
`herein.
`
`44.
`
` Asandfor Defendant's Eleventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant:states that
`
`Plaintiffs claims are barred in that it cannot recover upon such claims tosthe extent that
`
`certain labor, services, and materials allegedly furnished weré-not.authorized by the
`
`alleged contract and/or any change orders thereto including, butnot limited, the sealing
`
`of drains and the purchase of excess Redguard watefproofing membrane.
`
`45.
`
`As and for Defendant's Twelfth Affirmative Defense, Defendantstates that
`
`Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine Of.unelean hands. Plaintiff failed to perform
`
`its obligations under the subject contract andotherwisefailed to perform the subject work
`
`or provide construction servicés»and materials in a workmanlike manner and in
`
`accordance with the contract, applicable building codes,
`
`industry standards and/or
`
`notices of acceptance.\™hhis wrongful conduct precludesPlaintiff from seeking to invoke
`
`the Court's jurisdiction against Defendant.
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`46.(As\and for Defendant's Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, Plaintiff states that
`
`Plaintiffseelaims are barred becauseit breachedits implied covenant of good faith and
`
`fair dealing under the subject contract by furnishing defective, deficient and incomplete
`
`labor, materials, and supplies to the subject project and failed to undertake the subject
`
`work in a proper manner.
`
`47.
`
`As and for Defendant's Fourteenth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states
`
`Page 9 of 25
`
`

`

`that Plaintiffs claims are barred byvirtue of its failure to comply with the Florida Building
`
`Code and/or industry standards for those reasons more particularly set forth in Plaintiff's
`
`Counterclaim filed herein.
`
`48.
`
`Asand for Defendant's Fifteenth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that
`
`Plaintiffs claims for damages are barred because the granting of the relief requested in
`
`Plaintiffs Complaint will provide Plaintiff with an improper windfall.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby requests that
`
`this Court eater an Order
`
`dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint herein, awarding Defendant costs“and disbursements,
`
`reasonableattorneys’ fees pursuant to the subject Contract.and forSuch other and further
`
`relief as is just and proper.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`Defendant ROBERT SCHNEIDER\ Defendant’), by and through his undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby sues Plaintiff, GOVE CAPITAL, LLC, DBA FLOOR COVERINGS
`
`INTERNATIONAL BOCA RATON¢Plaintiff’) and Defendant VINCE ROZEK,individually
`
`(“Rozek”) (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges asfollows:
`
`ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is a resident of and domiciled in Palm Beach County, Florida.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is a Florida limited liability company
`
`with its principal place of business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Rozek is a resident of and domiciled
`
`in Palm Beach County, Florida.
`
`4.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendant Rozek was the managing member
`
`of Plaintiff as well as its employee and agent.
`
`Page 10 of 25
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida, which is in the county
`
`where the causesof action sued upon herein accrued and where the subject real property,
`
`described infra, is located.
`
`6.
`
`This is an action for damages which exceed $50,000.00, exclusive of
`
`interest, costs, and attorney fees and is subjectto the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`7.
`
`All conditions precedent to the maintenance of the causes offaction herein
`
`have been performed, have occurred or have been waived.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant has retained the services of Shapifo Blasi Wasserman &
`
`Hermann, P.A. to represent him in this cause and has agreed afid become obligated to
`
`pay it a reasonable attorneys’ fee for its services.
`
`THE PROPERTY
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`9.
`
`The real property which isAhe subject of the action herein is located at 808
`
`Seasage Drive, Delray Beach, FL 38483 upon whichis constructed a single-family home
`
`(hereinafter "the Property”).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`Deféndantyis now, and at all times material hereto was, the owner of the
`
`Property.
`
`11.\
`
`“When Defendant
`
`first
`
`contacted Plaintiff, Defendant had already
`
`approached a numberofflooring contractors, flooring companies and paving contractors
`
`to do work which involved demolition of existing flooring on balconies with drains in some
`
`of the floors and installation oftile.
`
`12.
`
`However, none of them would agree to bid to do so or Defendant refused
`
`to allow them to bid because oftheir lack of experience with secondfloor balconies.
`
`Page 11 of 25
`
`

`

`13.
`
`In or about mid-2023, Defendant first contacted Plaintiff regarding the
`
`possibility of Plaintiff replacing flooring on and around the exterior of the Property
`
`including balconies thereon.
`
`14.
`
`Upon Defendant contacting Plaintiff, Plaintiff's sales representative, Robert
`
`Halpern (“Halpern”), represented that Plaintiff had extensive experience in
`
`such
`
`demolition and instailation of flooring especially on balconies and that it couldjundertake
`
`the subject work competently.
`
`15.
`
`Halpern further advised Defendant that the owner ofPlaintiff, Defendant
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`Rozak, was the technical expert for Plaintiff.
`
`16.
`
`Upon being informed of such fact, Defendant advised Halpern that he
`
`would like to meet Rozak at the Property to discuss, the scope of the project and insure
`
`that Plaintiff could undertake same given the YefUsal of previous parties to get involved.
`
`17.
`
`Thereafter, Plaintiff furnished)Defendant with two unexecuted proposals,
`
`none of which contemplated removal and replacement of the roofing system or the use
`
`of a Redguard waterproofing membrane beneath the flooring to be replaced. True and
`
`correct copies of the proposals are attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively
`
`and incorporatedyherein by reference.
`
`18.
`
`After receipt of the proposals, on or about September 1, 2023, Defendant
`
`asked*Halpern whetherbalconyfloors with drains could be removed and again expressed
`
`his concern about removing the balconyflooring because of the underlying roof system
`
`and the fact that the original builder of the home had advised him that the floors should
`
`not be removed becauseof the roofing underlayment.
`
`Page 12 of 25
`
`

`

`19.
`
`Thereafter, Halpern claimed to have spoken to Defendant Rozak who
`
`informed him that there would be no issue with removing the existing roof system because
`
`it would be replaced with Redguard waterproofing membrane.
`
`20.
`
`This wasthefirst time Defendant was advised of Redguard waterproofing
`
`membrane.
`
`21.
`
`To such end, on or about September 2, 2023, a new~proposal was
`
`presented including the application of Redguard.
`
`22. Onor about September 7, 2023, Defendant Rozak visitedthe Property with
`
`Halpern to meet Defendant and inspect the balconies.
`
`23.
`
` Atthat time, Defendant reiterated that beneath the existing balcony flooring
`
`was a roof system that needed to be removed for the néw flooring.
`
`24.
`
`In response, Defendant Rozak‘epresented to Defendant that the removal
`
`of the existing roofing underlaymentwould not create any issues and would be replaced
`
`with Redguard waterproofing mémbrane.
`
`25.
`
`During Defendant Rozak’svisit to the Property to meet with Defendant and
`
`inspect same, he determined that there was a leak in the Southeast cornerof the balcony
`
`adjacentto the gym.
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`26.(Duting such visit, Defendantfurther pointed out to Defendant Rozakthat he
`
`had had=anether contractor replace an outdoor kitchen porch floor which was installed
`
`improperly and caused pooling of water.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant indicated that he wanted to insure that such condition was not
`
`repeated when the balcony flooring was replaced.
`
`Page 13 of 25
`
`

`

`28.
`
`Before concluding his meeting with Defendant Rozak and Halpern,
`
`Defendant once again reminded them of the existence of the roofing system and
`
`questioned the propriety of removing the existing flooring rather than simply installing the
`
`new flooring over the old one. Defendant once again informed Defendant Rozak and
`
`Halpern that if he retained Plaintiffs services, he wanted assurances that Defendant
`
`Rozak would manage the project, be present daily and at all critical times, utilize Plaintiffs
`
`best crew, insure that there was no pooling of water, keep Defendantinformed as to the
`
`status of the demolition and installation and commencethe tile installation on November
`
`27, 2023 and complete same by December 18, 2023 due to. Deféndant’s travel plans and
`
`his desire to be present during the undertaking of the’subject’ work.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant was scheduled to be out of the country on December 31, 2023
`
`and needed the time between December18!" apd December 31% to have the balcony
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`railings re-installed.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Rozaka@gain assured Defendant that all of his concerns would
`
`be addressedincluding that the existing flooring could be removed notwithstanding the
`
`existing roofing systen®since Redguard waterproofing membrane would bereplacingit,.
`
`31.
`
`However, he expressed concern about the leak and the damageit was
`
`causing fof which he indicated to Defendant he had trades who could undertake
`
`necessaryerepairs if they were needed and if so, Defendant would be responsible for such
`
`cost.
`
`32.
`
`Based upon the representations of Defendants, on or about September7,
`
`2023, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the subject agreement (hereinafter “the
`
`Agreement’), which was previously sent to Defendant, whereby Plaintiff agreed to
`
`Page 14 of 25
`
`

`

`undertake the demolition of the existing balcony flooring and installation of new balcony
`
`flooring (hereinafter “the Work"). A true and correct copy of the Agreement is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`33.
`
`Pursuant further to the Agreement, Defendant paid Plaintiff a deposit in the
`
`amount of $15,000.00.
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`34.
`
`Pursuant further to the Agreement, Redguard waterproofing mémbrane was
`
`to be installed to replace the existing roof system.
`
`35.
`
`Since Redguard waterproofing sealant was the mateériahto’be used in place
`
`of roofing underlayment, the Agreement was silent as toathe cost to replace the roof
`
`system and Defendant expected that such cost would be absorbed byPlaintiff.
`
`36.
`
`Pursuant further to the Agreement; demolition of the existing flooring was
`
`to commence on November 6, 2023 in erder to’expedite remedying the roof leak,
`
`if
`
`needed, prior to thetile installation contemplated to commence on November 27, 2023.
`
`37.
`
`The installation of the ‘new flooring was not
`
`to be commenced until
`
`November27th, as originally agreed, as Defendant was scheduled to be on vacation and
`
`wanted to be present diiring suchtime.
`
`38.
`
`However,installation of the flooring had not started on November 27, 2023
`
`not only dué to the need for underlayment, but also due to Plaintiff's inability to procure
`
`all of thé*fleoring materials and labor.
`
`39.
`
`During the demolition, Defendant was out of the country, but inquired of
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant Rozak as to the status to which Plaintiff responded that
`
`“everything looked good”, but he wanted to speak with his consultant about the roofing
`
`underlayment.
`
`Page 15 of 25
`
`

`

`40.
`
`41.
`
`At that time, Plaintiff had uncovered the felt underlayment.
`
`Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant Rozak confirmed with his contractor that
`
`the Redguard waterproofing membrane would have been insufficient to replace the
`
`existing roof system.
`
`42.
`
`Upon doing so, Defendant Rozak claimed that he was unaware of the
`
`existing roofing system of which he had been apprisedof prior to Defendantentering into
`
`the Contract and that notwithstanding his intention to use Redguardy waterproofing
`
`membrane,
`
`the purported issues with the roof system/wotld—be Defendant's
`
`responsibility.
`
`43.|Suchclaim wascontrary to the proposal of Plaintiff given to Defendantprior
`
`to Defendant executing the Contract which incladedRedguard to act as a seal!in lieu of
`
`the underlayment, whichis a critical part ofthe roof system.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant has learned+hat the’use of Redguard waterproofing membrane
`
`is not a substitute for properly installedjunderlayment.
`
`45.
`
`Had Defendant known that Redguard was not the proper product, it would
`
`never have agreed to ‘remove the existing flooring and simply placed the new flooring
`
`over the existing*ones.
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`46.(At‘that time, Plaintiff furnished Defendant with a specification sheet for
`
`replacifgthe.roof underlayment although a partial proposal for such replacement wasnot
`
`provided until a later date.
`
`47.
`
`Additionally, the balcony adjacent to the bedroom wascantilevered from the
`
`wall such that it needed additional support during the existing floor removal process.
`
`Page 16 of 25
`
`

`

`48.
`
`Plaintiff agreed to furnish such support byutilizing existing scaffolding at the
`
`Property.
`
`49.
`
`Nevertheless Defendant observed during the removal of the existing
`
`flooring that no such support was provided, severely weakening the structural support of
`
`the balcony.
`
`50.
`
`Dueto Plaintiff's destruction of the roof system andfailure to ifstall a proper
`
`replacement, Defendant further was obligated to retain a roofer resulting in substantial
`
`additional costs to him.
`
`51.
`
`Near the purported completion of the work, Plaintifffiéeded to grout the new
`
`tile and did so while wet resulting in effervescence and. otherissues.
`
`52.
`
`Similarly upon completion, extensive.ponding of water occurred on the
`
`balconiesin the rain causing premature deterioration of the balconies compromising their
`
`structural integrity and water intrudedebeneath thetile at the floor edging damaging paint
`
`and deteriorating the stucco.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant haslikewise determined that Plaintiff failed to pull permits for that
`
`workfor which permits\were required.
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`COUNT I
`BREACH OF AGREEMENT BY PLAINTIFF
`
`54...
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 53 above, asif more fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`This is an action for damages in an amountin excess of $50,000.00.
`
`56._‘Plaintiff was obligated to Defendantto furnish labor, materials and supplies
`
`in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, applicable building codes and
`
`construction industry standards as well as in a mannerfree from defects and deficiencies.
`
`Page 17 of 25
`
`

`

`57.
`
`‘Plaintiff materially breached the Agreement, including but not limited to by:
`
`a.
`
`failing to furnish proper supervision and sufficient labor to timely complete
`
`the work and project whichis the subject of the action herein;
`
`b.
`
`failing to furnish and use proper and/or substandard materials for
`
`incorporation into the Project,
`
`including but not
`
`limited to Fhinset and
`
`Redguard waterproofing membrane;
`
`c.
`
`failing to timely commence such work;
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`d. damaged the roof systems beneath the flooring upon demolition and failed
`
`to replace same;
`
`e.
`
`furnishing substandard, defective ar incomplete, labor and workmanship
`
`including but not limited to failirig to. grout the flooring when dry,failing to
`
`seal the edges of the balconytiles, failing to fasten the drain covers and
`
`failing to install the flodring.with the proper elevations;
`
`f.
`
`failing to complete the Work in accordancewith the contract documents, the
`
`Florida BuildingxCode and industry standards;
`
`g. overcharged ‘for work undertaken and materials never delivered to or
`
`incorporated into the subject project; and
`
`ha
`
`failing to pull permits for that portion of the work for which permits were
`
`needed.
`
`58.
`
`Commencing shortly before Defendant's
`
`return from vacation and
`
`continuing thereafter, Defendant notified Plaintiff of the issues with the flooring and
`
`demanded that Plaintiff remedy same. True and correct copies of notices are attached
`
`hereto as Composite Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`Page 18 of 25
`
`

`

`59.
`
`Notwithstanding such notices,Plaintiff has failed and refused and continues
`
`to fail and refuse to take any action to cure any of the defects and deficiencies.
`
`60.
`
`As a direct result of Plaintiffs material breaches of the Agreement,
`
`Defendant has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including but not limited to
`
`costs to remove, replace, repair, correct, and complete Plaintiffs defective and deficient
`
`Work and costs to remove, replace, construct, and repair other property6¢ated on the
`
`Property damaged by Plaintiff's defective and deficient work.
`
`61.
`
`Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreément,-Plaintiff is liable to
`
`Defendant for his attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result ofits breach.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgmentfor damages against Plaintiff in an
`
`amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with an award of costs and disbursements,
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and such othér andYfurtherrelief as is just and proper.
`
`COUNTII
`NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`62.
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`paragraphs 1 throtigh 20, 22 through 31, 39 through 53 and 55 above, as if more fully set
`
`forth herein
`
`63.\
`
`“Subsequent to September 7, 2023, Plaintiff undertook the demolition of the
`
`existing balcony flooring and installation of new balconyflooring.
`
`64.
`
`Independent of the terms of any agreement between Defendant and
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`in doing so Plaintiff owed a duty to Defendant to furnish labor, materials and
`
`supplies in accordance with the standard of care used by similar licensed contractors, in
`
`Page 19 of 25
`
`

`

`the same locale under similar circumstances, consistent with all applicable building
`
`codes, sound construction industry standards and free from defects and deficiencies.
`
`65.
`
`‘Plaintiffs duties to Defendant also included supervising and coordinating
`
`the work undertaken, protecting the residence, personal property and other property from
`
`damages dueto the renovations, and exercising reasonable care not to damage other
`
`property.
`
`66.
`
`‘Plaintiff breached its duty owed to Defendant, including,but not limited to
`
`by:
`
`NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
`
`a. damaging stucco on the exterior walls ofthe Défendant’s home in and
`
`around the balcony flooring;
`
`b. compromising the structural
`
`integsity”of the balcony adjacent to the
`
`bedroom byfailing to supporsame during removal of existing flooring;
`
`c. damaging the roof system ‘beneath the balcony flooring upon removal:
`
`and
`
`d. otherwise failing to furnish the Work in accordance with the Florida
`
`BuildingsxCode and/or sound construction industry standards;
`
`67. Asa direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs negligence, Defendant has
`
`suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not limited to costs to remove,
`
`replac@eonstruct, and repair other property located on the Property damaged by
`
`Plaintiff's defective and deficient work.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment against Plaintiff for damagesin
`
`an amountin excess of $50,000.00 together with costs and disbursements, reasonable
`
`attorney's fees and such other and furtherrelief as is just and proper.
`
`Page 20 of 25
`
`

`

`VIOLATION OF SECTION aaGy STATUTES AGAINST
`
`PLAINTIFF — THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE
`
`68.
`
`Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 53 and 55 above, asif m

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket