Kelley Kronenberg Partner and Business Unit Leader Jake Huxtable, Practice Partner Zachary Schiffman, and Partner Melissa Usher secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in Palm Beach County Circuit Court on behalf of Allied Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. in a multi-count construction defect lawsuit. The client paid nothing. 

The plaintiff filed suit in 2026 alleging five causes of action arising from a roofing system installed at a Boca Raton residence in 2014: breach of contract, breach of express warranty, violation of Section 553.84 of the Florida Statutes, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. The case presented exposure exceeding $250,000.00, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.  

The team identified several independent grounds that each independently doomed the plaintiff’s claims. First, the suit was filed more than 620 days after the statute of repose expired. Florida’s 2023 amendment to Section 95.11(3)(b) reduced the repose period for construction-related claims from ten years to seven, with a grace period allowing existing claims to be filed no later than July 1, 2024. The plaintiff missed that deadline by well over a year. Second, the express warranty agreements attached to the plaintiff’s own complaint contained language barring recovery for negligence, strict liability, tort, and consequential damages, which disposed of the warranty counts on their face. Third, the plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter failed to comply with Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, which requires specific notice procedures before a construction defect action can be filed. The demand letter cited an inapplicable Florida Building Code provision relating to wood shingle roofing rather than the concrete tile system at issue, made no reference to Chapter 558, and failed to identify the defects and resulting damages with the specificity the statute requires. Because the statute of repose had already run, the defective notice could not be cured. Fourth, the plaintiff’s demand for attorney’s fees across all five counts had no basis in contract or statute. 

The team filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice and served a 57.105 motion for sanctions on the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel. Faced with both, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. 

This excellent result highlights the firm’s cross-disciplinary approach, drawing on deep experience in first-party property, construction defect litigation, and seasoned trial practice to identify and press every available defense from the earliest stage of the case. 

Learn more about the firm’s First-Party Property and Coverage Division: click here. 

Read our First-Party Property newsletter: https://www.kelleykronenberg.com/category/newsletter/