jar546
CBO
553.84 Statutory civil action.—Notwithstanding any other remedies available, any person or party, in an individual capacity or on behalf of a class of persons or parties, damaged as a result of a material violation of this part or the Florida Building Code has a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the person or party who committed the material violation; however, if the person or party obtains the required building permits and any local government or public agency with authority to enforce the Florida Building Code approves the plans, if the construction project passes all required inspections under the code, and if there is no personal injury or damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the permits, plans, and inspections, this section does not apply unless the person or party knew or should have known that the material violation existed. For purposes of this section, the term “material violation” means a Florida Building Code violation that exists within a completed building, structure, or facility which may reasonably result, or has resulted, in physical harm to a person or significant damage to the performance of a building or its systems.
History, s. 15, ch. 74-167, s. 88, ch. 2000-141, ss. 28, 34, ch. 2001-186, s. 3, ch. 2001-372, s. 2, ch. 2023-22.
Summary in plain language
This statute gives an owner, a tenant, a successor owner, or a class of affected people a direct cause of action for a serious Florida Building Code violation. The claim is statutory, separate from contract or negligence claims, and it targets the person or party that committed the violation.
What lets contractors and designers off the hook
There is a safe harbor that can defeat a 553.84 claim when all four conditions are met.
Any one of these removes the shield.
• Missing permits, missing plan approvals, or failing required inspections,
• Personal injury to anyone, even if limited,
• Damage to other property, which can include neighboring property and contents that are not part of the permitted work,
• Proof that the contractor, a subcontractor, or the design professional knew, or should have known, that the violation existed. The knowledge standard is objective, it looks at what a competent actor in that role should have recognized.
What is a material violation
It must exist in a completed building, structure, or facility, and it must reasonably threaten physical harm, or it must cause significant damage to the performance of the building or its systems. Examples include compromised structural capacity, life safety system defects, serious building envelope failures that impair performance, or MEP defects that degrade intended function. Minor punch-list level issues that do not impair performance do not meet this threshold.
Who can sue and who can be sued
Any person or party damaged by the material violation can bring the claim, including associations and later purchasers. Defendants can include the contractor, subcontractors that performed the noncompliant work, and design professionals whose plans or specifications violated the code. The statute targets the party that committed the violation. It does not create liability for the local government for approving plans or passing inspections, and building officials remain protected by existing immunities.
How knowledge can be shown
Evidence can include red-tag histories that were ignored, written directives to proceed contrary to code, submittals or RFIs that flag noncompliance, deviations from product approvals, substitution of nonapproved products, or site conditions a competent professional would have recognized as noncompliant. Repeated notices, nonconformance reports, and ignored peer review comments can support constructive knowledge.
Remedies and limits to keep in view
This statute provides a path to recover damages caused by the material violation, such as repair costs and related losses. It does not remove other defenses that may exist under contracts or other statutes, and it operates alongside Florida’s limitation and repose periods for construction claims. The presence of permits, approvals, and inspections never converts a code violation into compliance, it only creates the safe harbor framework above.
Why this matters to the industry
Owners gain a clear statutory remedy for serious code defects. Contractors and design professionals gain a defined shield when they follow the permitting and inspection process, there is no injury or outside property damage, and they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the violation. The statute encourages full compliance up front, accurate plan preparation, correct product approvals, and honest inspections. It also confirms that passing inspections does not excuse knowingly noncompliant work.
Questions for the forum
Does this safe harbor fairly protect parties who rely on the permitting and inspection process, or does it make recovery too difficult for owners when defects surface after completion. Where should the line be drawn on what counts as other property. How are members documenting decisions and product approvals to address the knowledge standard.
History, s. 15, ch. 74-167, s. 88, ch. 2000-141, ss. 28, 34, ch. 2001-186, s. 3, ch. 2001-372, s. 2, ch. 2023-22.
Summary in plain language
This statute gives an owner, a tenant, a successor owner, or a class of affected people a direct cause of action for a serious Florida Building Code violation. The claim is statutory, separate from contract or negligence claims, and it targets the person or party that committed the violation.
What lets contractors and designers off the hook
There is a safe harbor that can defeat a 553.84 claim when all four conditions are met.
- Required permits were obtained,
- The enforcing agency approved the plans,
- The project passed all required code inspections,
- There is no personal injury and no damage to other property beyond the permitted work itself.
If every condition is satisfied, the plaintiff must also prove the defendant knew or should have known about the material violation. If that knowledge is not shown, the statute does not apply.
Any one of these removes the shield.
• Missing permits, missing plan approvals, or failing required inspections,
• Personal injury to anyone, even if limited,
• Damage to other property, which can include neighboring property and contents that are not part of the permitted work,
• Proof that the contractor, a subcontractor, or the design professional knew, or should have known, that the violation existed. The knowledge standard is objective, it looks at what a competent actor in that role should have recognized.
What is a material violation
It must exist in a completed building, structure, or facility, and it must reasonably threaten physical harm, or it must cause significant damage to the performance of the building or its systems. Examples include compromised structural capacity, life safety system defects, serious building envelope failures that impair performance, or MEP defects that degrade intended function. Minor punch-list level issues that do not impair performance do not meet this threshold.
Who can sue and who can be sued
Any person or party damaged by the material violation can bring the claim, including associations and later purchasers. Defendants can include the contractor, subcontractors that performed the noncompliant work, and design professionals whose plans or specifications violated the code. The statute targets the party that committed the violation. It does not create liability for the local government for approving plans or passing inspections, and building officials remain protected by existing immunities.
How knowledge can be shown
Evidence can include red-tag histories that were ignored, written directives to proceed contrary to code, submittals or RFIs that flag noncompliance, deviations from product approvals, substitution of nonapproved products, or site conditions a competent professional would have recognized as noncompliant. Repeated notices, nonconformance reports, and ignored peer review comments can support constructive knowledge.
Remedies and limits to keep in view
This statute provides a path to recover damages caused by the material violation, such as repair costs and related losses. It does not remove other defenses that may exist under contracts or other statutes, and it operates alongside Florida’s limitation and repose periods for construction claims. The presence of permits, approvals, and inspections never converts a code violation into compliance, it only creates the safe harbor framework above.
Why this matters to the industry
Owners gain a clear statutory remedy for serious code defects. Contractors and design professionals gain a defined shield when they follow the permitting and inspection process, there is no injury or outside property damage, and they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the violation. The statute encourages full compliance up front, accurate plan preparation, correct product approvals, and honest inspections. It also confirms that passing inspections does not excuse knowingly noncompliant work.
Questions for the forum
Does this safe harbor fairly protect parties who rely on the permitting and inspection process, or does it make recovery too difficult for owners when defects surface after completion. Where should the line be drawn on what counts as other property. How are members documenting decisions and product approvals to address the knowledge standard.
