Strickland-Collins Const. v. Barnett Bank of Naples

Decision Date21 June 1989
Docket NumberSTRICKLAND-COLLINS,No. 88-02783,88-02783
Citation545 So.2d 476,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1510
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1510 CONSTRUCTION, a joint venture, Appellant, v. BARNETT BANK OF NAPLES, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Louis S. Amato and Jeffrey R. Becker of Amato, Anderson & Nickel, Naples, for appellant.

Leo J. Salvatori of Quarles & Brady, Naples, for appellee.

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Strickland-Collins Construction, a joint venture composed of Strickland Construction, Inc., and William M. Collins Co., Inc., appeals a summary judgment in favor of the Barnett Bank of Naples concerning a negligence claim for lender liability. We affirm because the claim involves only economic loss and the litigants were parties to a contract which allocated these risks of loss adversely to Strickland-Collins.

In April 1985, Strickland-Collins entered into a building contract with JRL Development, Inc., to construct a project known as The Village Falls in Naples, Florida. The contract contemplated the construction of fifteen buildings at a cost in excess of $2,000,000.

In order to finance this project, the developer entered into a construction loan agreement on May 1, 1985, with the Barnett Bank of Naples. Strickland-Collins signed this construction loan agreement as general contractor. It made frequent references to the general contractor and specifically stated that:

The general contractor has joined in the execution of this Construction Loan Agreement and does hereby acknowledge the terms and conditions of this Construction Loan Agreement and does agree to be bound thereby.

Under the agreement, the bank required substantial documentation to establish that the loan funds were actually utilized on the project. While it appears that the bank intended these provisions merely to protect itself and to assure that there was adequate security for the loan, the general contractor argues that these provisions also created a duty in negligence to protect the general contractor from misapplication of funds. The general contractor alleged that funds were misdirected by the owner to other projects after the funds were provided by the bank and, thus, there were insufficient funds to pay for the final work which the general contractor performed.

The general contractor did not sue the bank for breach of the construction loan agreement. Presumably, the general contractor chose not to sue the bank for breach of contract because the contract contains a broad "immunity" clause which states:

Lender shall not be liable to third parties such as the general contractor ... for services, labor or materials employed upon ... the land ..., and further as to such third par...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Motorcity of Jacksonville, Ltd. By and Through Motorcity of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Southeast Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • May 8, 1996
    ...Corp., 897 F.Supp. 1437 (S.D.Fla.1995) (applying economic loss rule to floor plan financing agreement); Strickland-Collins Const. v. Barnett Bank, 545 So.2d 476 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1989) (applying economic loss rule to construction loan agreement). The rationale underlying the economic loss ru......
  • Kingston Square Tenants v. Tuskegee Gardens
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • May 26, 1992
    ...the breaching party has committed a tort separate or independent of the act of breach. See also Strickland-Collins Const. v. Barnett Bank, 545 So.2d 476, 477 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct.App.1989) ("In the absence of personal injuries or property damage to property outside the contract, Florida will not......
  • Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • November 17, 2014
    ...of contract.” Medalie v. FSC Securities Corp., 87 F.Supp.2d 1295, 1299–1300 (S.D.Fla.2000) (citing Strickland–Collins Constr. v. Barnett Bank of Naples, 545 So.2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) ; and Keys Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 897 F.Supp. 1437, 1443 (S.D.Fla.1995) ). The rule categori......
  • Pycsa Panama, S.A. v. Tensar Earth Technologies
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • April 16, 2008
    ...purchaser to protect his own interests by bargaining for appropriate provisions in his own contract."); Strickland-Collins Constr. v. Barnett Bank, 545 So.2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citing Florida Power to hold that no tort claims are available "in the absence of personal injuries or p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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