In 951 Harbor Drive, LLC v. SD Construction, LLC, the homeowner, 951 Harbor Drive, LLC (“Plaintiff”) appealed an order of the Judicial Circuit Court of Florida which granted SD Construction, LLC, the general contractor’s (“Defendant”), Motion for Summary Judgment. 951 Harbor Drive, LLC v. SD Constr., LLC, 394 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). After Plaintiff’s home was completed, Plaintiff noted water damage to their home’s interior which they contended was from Defendant’s negligent roof construction. Id. at 692.

There were two actions involved, a subrogation action filed by Plaintiff’s insurance company against Defendant and another filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant for the damages that were not covered under Plaintiff’s insurance policy that related to the defectively constructed roof waterproofing system. Id at 693. The subrogation action was settled but the release did not release any claims that were related to the construction defects. Id. at 694.

Defendant had pled an affirmative defense in their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint that stated that any claims that Plaintiff had assigned settled or released were barred and the subrogation lawsuit was referenced by case number. Id. Given this defense, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that Plaintiff was barred from bringing the action under the claim splitting doctrine. Id. 

Generally, in Florida, the claim splitting doctrine ensures that a Plaintiff does not attempt to split up a demand and prosecute it in a piecemeal fashion but in order to raise this issue it must be raised by a Defendant as an affirmative defense. Id. at 695. When Florida Courts look to see whether an affirmative defense sufficiently raises a defense, they look at the pleading’s substance and not how the defense was labeled. Id. Also, the Florida Courts look to see whether the defense complies with the requirements of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.140(b). Id.

After its review of the motion and affirmative defenses filed by Defendant, the Court held that Defendant waived the affirmative defense of claim splitting because the Defendant failed to adequately plead the defense. Id. Thus, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the lower Court.  Id.

It is always important to consider the language utilized in any affirmative defenses that are raised. Florida Courts have made clear that a defendant must explicitly provide language in its affirmative defenses demonstrating that it is raising a claim splitting defense when applicable so that such a defense is not later determined to be waived. Defendants cannot solely rely on generic settlement and release affirmative defenses and should consider whether this defense could apply to their case when preparing an answer.