Kelley Kronenberg Chair of Construction Law Gary Brown and Attorney Ethan Goldstein achieved a remarkable settlement for their window and door manufacturing client, avoiding a multi-million-dollar exposure, in a complex construction defect case involving a South Florida condominium association. 

The case arose when the Association filed defect claims against multiple parties, including the client who had manufactured and supplied exterior sliding glass doors for a multi-unit project located less than a mile from the shoreline. After several years, the coating finish on the doors began delaminating, and the Association sought full replacement of all doors. 

The case presented extraordinary challenges when our firm was retained. The client’s former general counsel (licensed outside of Florida) failed to engage local counsel to appear in the action, failed to file a response to the operative complaint—resulting in a court default against the client, and failed to notify the client of a scheduled mediation. All other parties had already settled when our firm was retained, leaving the client as the sole remaining target of a multi-million-dollar defect claim set for trial on damages only. 

Our team immediately pursued a motion to set aside the default, supported by detailed affidavits and a proposed Answer asserting multiple defenses. We argued that the client’s failure to defend was not willful but resulted from general counsel’s inadequate representation and failure to communicate with the client, demonstrating good cause for relief from the default. 

Simultaneously, we developed a comprehensive technical defense strategy based upon a retained engineering expert to evaluate the claimed defects and present persuasive analysis and opinions regarding the technical and other defenses that would be raised if the Court set aside the default, and regardless, a much narrower repair scope and cost. 

Their defense centered on several key arguments. First, they contended that the powder coating finish specified by the architect was not appropriate for the harsh coastal marine environment with exposure to salt spray and salt air, which led to the premature delamination. This implicated the Spearin doctrine, which holds that when an owner provides specifications, the contractor is entitled to rely on their adequacy for construction or, as here, the furnishing of the specified materials. 

Second, Gary and Ethan argued that the Association failed to demonstrate any defect in the client’s product itself. The doors functioned properly; only the coating finish had deteriorated due to environmental exposure. 

Third, they presented compelling evidence that the Association’s failure to perform routine maintenance—specifically, spraying or wiping down the metal frames monthly as recommended for coastal applications—caused or substantially contributed to the delamination. This established responsibility on the part of the Association, and if allowed to present that at trial, could have resulted in a complete defense verdict under applicable comparative fault laws. 

Fourth, and importantly, our team demonstrated that full replacement of the doors constituted economic waste. Our expert opined that the doors could be recoated in the field without removal to a factory, providing a fully effective repair at a fraction of the replacement cost. New doors were simply unnecessary to remedy the cosmetic finish issue. 

Our team took a confident stance with the Association that, based upon applicable law, the Court should set aside the default and allow a trial on the merits rather than proceeding to a damages-only trial. However, even if the default remained, we presented a powerful defense on damages through the expert’s opinions regarding reasonable and economical repair alternatives. 

The Association, represented by experienced construction defect counsel, had demanded payment for complete door replacement across all units based on their own expert reports. Faced with the client’s motion to set aside the default, the technical defenses regarding environmental factors and maintenance failures, the Spearin doctrine implications, and the dramatic cost differential between repair and replacement, the Association agreed to settle for substantially less. 

This settlement demonstrates exceptional advocacy under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Gary and Ethan not only rescued the client from a default caused by prior general counsel’s failures but also achieved a settlement that saved the client a tremendous amount as well as significant expenses in further litigating the case through trial.  

This victory showcases the critical importance of engaging experienced local construction counsel, the value of the use of experts in settlement negotiations, and the effectiveness of economic waste arguments in construction defect cases. For clients, this case demonstrates that even when facing a default and multiple adverse factors, skilled counsel can achieve dramatic reductions in exposure through strategic motion practice, technical defenses, and compelling expert analysis.