County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc.

Decision Date23 October 1997
Docket NumberNo. 88842,88842
Citation703 So.2d 1049
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly S665 COUNTY OF BREVARD, Petitioner, v. MIORELLI ENGINEERING, INC., et al., Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

E.A. "Seth" Mills, Jr., Hala A. Sandridge, Jeffrey M. Paskert of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.

Dana G. Toole, Tampa, Robert A. Hingston, Coral Gables, for Respondent.

GRIMES, Justice.

We have for review County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc., 677 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), which expressly and directly conflicts with Southern Roadbuilders, Inc. v. Lee County, 495 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

On January 5, 1993, Miorelli Engineering Inc. ("MEI") contracted with Brevard County ("County") to design and build a spring training facility for the Florida Marlins. MEI began developing the facility. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the County and MEI. The County terminated the contract and withheld amounts due under the contract. MEI sued the County, asserting a variety of claims including a breach of contract claim seeking damages for extra work it had done on the facility which was beyond that described in the contract. 1 In a motion for partial summary judgment, the County argued that the extra work claim was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because the extra work was outside the terms of the express contract and no written change orders, as required by the contract, had been issued authorizing the extra work. The trial court denied the County's motion as to the extra work claims. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed that portion of the order which denied the motion for summary judgment on the claim for damages for extra work. 2

The legislature has explicitly waived sovereign immunity in tort for personal injury, wrongful death, and loss or injury of property. See § 768.28, Fla. Stat. (1995). Although no express legislative waiver has been granted for contract claims, this Court in Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4 (Fla.1984), found an implied waiver of sovereign immunity in contract on the premise that because the legislature authorized state entities to enter into contracts, it must have intended such contracts to be valid and binding on both parties. However, we concluded our opinion by stating:

We would also emphasize that our holding here is applicable only to suits on express, written contracts into which the state agency has statutory authority to enter.

Id. at 6.

Subsequently, the Second District Court of Appeal held that under Pan Am, sovereign immunity barred a contractor's claim for payment for additional work where that work was not included in the original contract or any subsequent written instrument. Southern Roadbuilders. Later, in Champagne-Webber, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 519 So.2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), the case heavily relied upon by the court below, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reasoned that Pan-Am did not preclude a contractor from recovering additional expenses based on a claim of breach of implied covenants or conditions contained within the scope of an express written contract. The court explained:

Virtually every contract contains implied covenants and conditions. For example, every contract includes an implied covenant that the parties will perform in good faith. In construction contract law an owner has (a) an implied obligation not to do anything to hinder or obstruct performance by the other person, Gulf American Land Corporation v. Wain, 166 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), (b) an implied obligation not to knowingly delay unreasonably the performance of duties assumed under the contract, Southern Gulf Utilities Inc. v. Boca Ciega Sanitary District, 238 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 240 So.2d 813 (Fla.1970), and (c) an implied obligation to furnish information which would not mislead prospective bidders, Jacksonville Port Authority v. Parkhill-Goodloe Co. Inc., 362 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

... It seems neither logical nor within the principles of fairness enunciated in the Pan-Am Tobacco case to construe the restrictive language of that case to mean that the defense of sovereign immunity is waived only for the state's breach of an express covenant or condition of an express, written contract, but that the defense is not waived for the state's breach of an implied covenant or condition of such contract, while the other contracting party remains liable for a breach of both the express and the implied covenants and conditions.

Champagne-Webber, 519 So.2d at 697-98.

While we agree with Champagne-Webber 's interpretation of Pan Am, we cannot agree with Champagne-Webber 's further observation that its opinion conflicted with Southern Roadbuilders. Binding the sovereign to the implied covenants of an express contract is quite different from requiring a sovereign to pay for work not contemplated by that contract. See Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 602 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (distinguishing between a claim for breach of an implied covenant within an express contract and a claim outside both the express and implied conditions of the contract).

Contrary to the court below, we conclude that the instant case falls outside the parameters of Champagne-Webber. In Champagne-Webber, the contractor agreed to construct a bridge for the City of Fort Lauderdale. The city represented to the contractor that the soil at the construction site was sand only. Once work commenced, the contractor discovered that the soil contained both sand and rock. Thus, the key issue was whether the city had misrepresented the soil conditions at the construction site and whether the contractor had justifiably relied on the misrepresentation. In the case at bar, MEI's extra work claims are for work totally outside the terms of the contract. Without a written change order, the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes recovery of the cost of the extra work.

One final point must be addressed. MEI asserts that the County waived the written change order requirement by directing work changes without following its own formalities. We decline to hold that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel can be used to defeat the express terms of the contract. Otherwise, the requirement of Pan Am that there first be an express written contract before there can be a waiver of sovereign immunity would be an empty one. An unscrupulous or careless government employee could alter or waive the terms of the written agreement, thereby leaving the sovereign with potentially unlimited liability.

Accordingly, we approve the rationale of Southern Roadbuilders and Champagne-Webber. We disapprove Interamerican Engineers & Constructors Corp. v. Palm Beach County Housing Authority, 629 So.2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion. We quash the decision below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion in which KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

For the reasons expressed below, I conclude that both waiver and estoppel may sometimes be applied against the sovereign, and as a consequence, the majority's opinion to the extent it addresses these issues, is flawed. I am most concerned that we are intervening to overturn an order denying a motion for summary judgment at a point in the proceedings when the facts have not been fully developed. We are, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion, largely in a factual vacuum.

The majority opinion holds that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes recovery, as a matter of law, of the cost of the contractor's extra work under Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4 (Fla.1984). 3 The majority opinion states:

MEI asserts that the County waived the written change order requirement by directing work changes without following its own formalities. We decline to hold that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel can be used to defeat the express terms of the contract. Otherwise, the requirement of Pan Am that there first be an express written contract before there can be a waiver of sovereign immunity would be an empty one. An unscrupulous or careless government employee could alter or waive the terms of the written agreement, thereby leaving the sovereign with potentially unlimited liability.

Majority op. at 1051. Hence, without citation to authority, and with virtually no analysis, the majority holds that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be applied to the sovereign in any disputes arising out of a contractual relationship. 4 It is interesting to compare appellate opinions and note how quickly the perspective may change with the specific circumstances being considered. For example, compare the majority's language here with that of the First District, in another case involving the application of the doctrines of waiver and estoppel to the government:

If the rule were not as so announced a governmental agency could purposefully fail to comply with some statutory prerequisite to the execution of a contract, avail itself of the benefits of that contract until such time as it arbitrarily and capriciously chose to ignore it, and then do so with no fear that any court could compel it to honor its agreement. It is just such a theory that the City asserts in this case and it is because of such conduct on the part of unscrupulous parties that the doctrine of equitable estoppel has become engrained as a cornerstone of the jurisprudence of a majority of the states of this nation.

Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, 366 So.2d 172, 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Initially,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 cases
  • Girgis v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Case No. 1:10-CV-590
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • August 20, 2010
    ...duty is a part of every contract. Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir.1999) (citing County of Brevard v. Miorelli Eng'g, Inc., 703 So.2d 1049, 1050 (Fla.1997)). However, the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing "is not an independent contract term. It is a doct......
  • Degutis v. Fin. Freedom, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • October 18, 2013
    ...all contractual relationships. Sepe v. City of Safety Harbor, 761 So.2d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); County of Brevard v. Miorelli Eng'g, Inc., 703 So.2d 1049, 1050 (Fla.1997) (“[E]very contract includes an implied covenant that the parties will perform in good faith.”). The implied coven......
  • Khalid v. Citrix Sys.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2020
    ...law. Florida courts recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract. County of Brevard v. Miorelli Eng'g, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 1997); Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 896 So. 2d 787, 791 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005). The rig......
  • City of Gainesville v. STATE, DOT
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 5, 2001
    ...Absent a written agreement, however, a vendor cannot sue the state for money damages on a contract theory. See County of Brevard v. Miorelli Eng'g, 703 So.2d 1049, 1051 (Fla.1997) (deciding case on summary judgment over dissent that court was acting "largely in a factual vacuum"); Pan-Am To......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Contract cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ...Assoc., Inc. v. Love , 732 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). 18. Sovereign Immunity: In County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc., 703 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 1997), the court ruled that under section 768.28, the legislature authorized state entities to enter into contracts and waived sover......
  • Business litigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Small-Firm Practice Tools - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 1, 2023
    ...of good faith and fair dealing as a part of every contract under Florida law. [ County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc ., 703 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla.1997).] This means that the parties to a contract have the implied duty to act in good faith in discharging their contractual duties. ......
  • Chipping away at the economic loss rule.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 73 No. 9, October 1999
    • October 1, 1999
    ...recover damages for claims previously barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering Inc., 703 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1997) (rehearing denied, Jan. 7, 1998), the Supreme Court barred a contractor's claim against a public owner for extra work performed ......
  • When the king does wrong: failing to fulfill implied duties.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 10, November 2003
    • November 1, 2003
    ...A decade after Southern Roadbuilders, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1997), reh'g denied (1998). In Miorelli, a design-build firm sued Brevard County to recover extra work it had performed on a spring baseball......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT