Building a new Florida home or commercial building?
In 2002 the Florida Legislature passed legislation Section 553.791, F.S. authorizing the use of private inspectors to conduct plans review and inspections in lieu of local government services. This statute allows the “Fee Owner” or contractor the option of using a private inspector to conduct plan review and inspection duties in lieu of the local building department personnel. The local building department must approve of and work with the private inspector, who is responsible for submitting the necessary approvals and paperwork. The private inspector must be certified under part XII of Chapter 468 of the Florida Statutes in order to be allowed to provide this service to customers. There are three main reasons to using a private inspector:
1. Liability Insurance
2. Liability Insurance
3. Liability Insurance
The biggest reason to use a private inspector is because a private inspector must carry professional liability insurance. Because of their personal exposure, private inspectors may be more likely to be complete, accurate, and thorough than a local government inspector. A government building inspector has sovereign immunity from liability. The term sovereign immunity basically means that one cannot sue the government in the event that the inspections were passed even though substantial building code violations may exist. The government is immune under the law.
Sovereign Immunity for Building Inspectors:
In Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985), the plaintiffs were condominium unit owners seeking damages against the City of Hialeah building inspectors for negligence in inspecting their condominium, and issuing what is known as a "certificate of occupancy." The Florida Supreme Court held that unless the plaintiffs could show that the city owed either an underlying common law or statutory duty of care to the individual condominium owners with respect to the alleged negligent conduct, there could be no governmental liability for this negligence. The Trianon plaintiffs argued that the city owed them a statutory duty of care to properly inspect construction projects pursuant to F.S. Ch. 533, and that the inspection laws were enacted for the protection of individual citizens as well as the general public. The court, however, determined that Ch. 533 was enacted only for the purpose of protecting the health and welfare of the public in general, and was not intended by the legislature to create a governmental duty of care to individual property owners. Finding no statutory or common law duty of care owed by the city to the individual property owners to inspect their building and issue certificates of occupancy, the court held that the city could not be held liable for any negligence in the performance of these acts.
In Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985), the plaintiffs were condominium unit owners seeking damages against the City of Hialeah building inspectors for negligence in inspecting their condominium, and issuing what is known as a "certificate of occupancy." The Florida Supreme Court held that unless the plaintiffs could show that the city owed either an underlying common law or statutory duty of care to the individual condominium owners with respect to the alleged negligent conduct, there could be no governmental liability for this negligence. The Trianon plaintiffs argued that the city owed them a statutory duty of care to properly inspect construction projects pursuant to F.S. Ch. 533, and that the inspection laws were enacted for the protection of individual citizens as well as the general public. The court, however, determined that Ch. 533 was enacted only for the purpose of protecting the health and welfare of the public in general, and was not intended by the legislature to create a governmental duty of care to individual property owners. Finding no statutory or common law duty of care owed by the city to the individual property owners to inspect their building and issue certificates of occupancy, the court held that the city could not be held liable for any negligence in the performance of these acts.