Agentis is pleased to share that partner Javier J. Rodriguez successfully secured an appellate victory on behalf of 1170 Supermarket, LLC, a Sedano’s Supermarkets affiliate, arising from a construction contract dispute on a project to build out a supermarket store that experienced significant delays.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full and granted a motion for attorneys’ fees. This result reinforces several important principles under Florida law, particularly the enforceability of unambiguous contract provisions in complex construction projects.
It also carries meaningful implications for owners, developers, contractors, and insurers, underscoring that courts will enforce clear contractual risk allocation, including no-damages-for-delay clauses and liquidated damages provisions.
The decision highlights the critical role of documentation, from properly executed change orders to contemporaneous project records, in shaping the outcome at trial. Just as importantly, the case demonstrates that appeals are not an opportunity to retry the facts, as appellate courts defer heavily to trial court findings, particularly on credibility.
At a broader level, this result reflects a consistent theme in construction litigation that disputes are often won or lost based on how well the contract is structured and how effectively it is enforced from day one.
A Practical Example of Contract Enforcement in Construction Disputes
This appeal arose from a dispute between a general contractor, Burke Construction Group, Inc., and the project owner, 1170 Supermarket, LLC, in connection with the build-out of a supermarket that experienced significant delays.
The appeal focused on three core issues:
• Whether the contractor was entitled to additional compensation for alleged owner-caused delays
• Whether the trial court properly awarded $130,500.00 to the project owner in liquidated damages for 87 days of delay attributable to the contractor
• Whether the award of $42,192.67 to the project owner for remedial work was supported by the evidence
Following a five-day non-jury trial, the court issued a detailed 17-page Final Judgment after weighing fact and expert testimony and reviewing the full project record.
The trial court found that Sedano’s acted reasonably and within its contractual rights in changing certain design elements on the project. The court properly enforced the Contract’s No-Damages-for-Delay provision, which limits the contractor’s remedy for delay caused by the owner to extensions of time rather than monetary damages. The court further found no evidence of fraud, bad faith, or active interference by the owner sufficient to override the Contract’s plain language.
What the Court Decided and Why It Matters
The court denied the contractor’s claim for additional compensation based on delays, enforcing Section 4.7 of the Contract, which bars recovery of monetary damages “from any cause whatsoever.”
Florida courts routinely uphold these provisions where the contract is clear and unambiguous. In this case, the court found that the owner’s actions, including issuing change orders and revising design elements, were expressly permitted under the Contract and did not constitute active interference.
Well-drafted delay provisions remain one of the most effective tools for allocating risk in construction projects. Courts will enforce them as written when supported by the record.
Liquidated Damages and Project Delay
The court awarded $130,500.00 in liquidated damages based on 87 days of delay attributable to the contractor’s mismanagement of the project, including mis-sequencing of work and refusal to proceed with critical work following a design revision.
In doing so, the court credited the testimony of Sedano’s expert, Dr. Ayman Morad, whose analysis relied on contemporaneous project documentation. The contractor’s expert was found not credible, and those determinations are entitled to deference on appeal.
Liquidated damages provisions will be enforced where delay is supported by credible, well-documented project evidence. Expert testimony tied to real-time records is often decisive.
Remedial Work and Contract Compliance
The court also awarded $42,192.67 for remedial work required to correct defective construction, consistent with the Contract. It further adjusted the Schedule of Values to reflect the work actually performed, rejecting unsupported claims for work that was not completed as originally planned.
Claims for additional compensation must align with both the contract and the project record. Courts will closely scrutinize whether the work was performed and properly documented.
Experience That Drives Results
This case reflects a broader principle seen across complex construction disputes: outcomes are often determined by how well the contract is structured and how effectively it is enforced throughout the project.
From contract drafting through trial and appeal, success requires:
• Clear allocation of risk in the governing agreement
• Consistent documentation during project execution
• A litigation strategy that aligns the facts with the contract
What This Means For Businesses
For owners, developers, and businesses in high-stakes commercial and construction disputes, this decision reinforces a straightforward but critical point: clarity, consistency, and documentation matter.
Courts will enforce the deal the parties made. A well-drafted contract, including no-damages-for-delay clauses and liquidated damages provisions, will be upheld when supported by the record. Contractor claims for additional compensation will be closely scrutinized against the contract and project documentation.
Just as importantly, this case underscores that success at trial is often determinative on appeal. Appellate courts defer heavily to factual findings and credibility determinations made by the trial court, and they will not reweigh evidence or rewrite clear contractual terms. That reality places a premium on developing a strong evidentiary record and aligning litigation strategy with the governing agreement from the outset.
In complex construction disputes, outcomes are often decided long before litigation begins. They turn on how well the contract is structured, how consistently it is followed during the project, and how effectively it is enforced when a dispute arises.
Contact Us
If you are facing a dispute or considering an appeal, contact Agentis to evaluate your options and develop a strategy to enforce or protect your interests.