In Babin Builders and Development, Inc. v. Quinones, Babin Builders and Development, Inc. (“Babin”) appealed an order denying its motion for attorney’s fees against Appellee/Third-Party Defendant, A&T Stucco, LLC (“A&T”). Babin Builders & Dev., Inc. v. Quinones, No. 1D2022-4103, 2025 WL 467070, at *1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2025). Babin, who served as the general contractor, subcontracted with A&T for stucco related services for Raymond and Linda Quinones’ single-family home. Id. After the Quinones’ filed a lawsuit against Babin alleging construction defects, Babin filed a third-party complaint alleging breach of contract, indemnity, negligence, and violation of the Florida building code against A&T and several other subcontractors who furnished labor, materials and services for the construction of the Quinones’ residence Id.

The trial court entered a directed verdict and final judgment in favor of Babin against A&T related to Babin’s breach of contract claim. Id. As a result, Babin filed a motion for award of attorney’s fees against A&T Id. The trial court found in favor of A&T, stating that the attorney’s fee provision did not apply because Babin was not the “prevailing party” at trial given Babin they were allocated 60% of fault to the plaintiff in contrast to A&T, who was allocated 40% fault to the plaintiff. Id. at 2.

Generally, in Florida, if provided for by a Florida Statue or as a result of a specific contractual provision, “the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorney’s fees.” Id. The First District Court of Appeals held that because the jury determined that A&T breached its contract with Babin and that A&T also had liability for defects at the Quinones’ residence, it was immaterial whether Babin was apportioned a greater percentage of liability for damages. Id. The Court found that the third-party complaint raised specific issues between the parties, A&T was found liable for damages which Babin incurred, and, thus Babin was entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees from A&T. Id. at 3. As a result, the Court reversed and remanded for an entry of an award of attorney’s fees in favor of Babin. Id.

It is always important to consider whether attorney’s fees may be awarded at the outset of litigation. With this decision, at least the First DCA has given third-party plaintiffs within the First DCA a powerful recourse to recover attorney’s fees against third-party defendant’s regardless of whether a third-party plaintiff is apportioned a higher percentage of liability for damages to the plaintiff in the underlying action.