Florida Statute 440.104 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXI
LABOR

Chapter 440
WORKERS' COMPENSATION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 440.104

440.104 Competitive bidder; civil actions.—

(1) Any person engaged in the construction industry, as provided in s. 440.02, who loses a competitive bid for a contract shall have a cause of action for damages against the person awarded the contract for which the bid was made, if the person making the losing bid establishes that the winning bidder knew or should have known that he or she was in violation of s. 440.10, s. 440.105, or s. 440.38 while performing the work under the contract.

(2) To recover in an action brought under this section, a party must establish a violation of s. 440.10, s. 440.105, or s. 440.38 by a preponderance of the evidence.

(3) Upon establishing that the winning bidder knew or should have known of the violation, the person shall recover as liquidated damages 30 percent of the total amount bid on the contract by the person bringing the action, or $15,000, whichever is greater.

(4) In any action under this section, the prevailing party is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.

(5) An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the performance of activities involving any building, clearing, filling, or execution contract, or the substantial improvement in the size or use of any structure, or the appearance of any land.

(6) A person may not recover any amounts under this section if the defendant in the action establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff:

(a) Was in violation of s. 440.10, s. 440.105, or s. 440.38 at the time of making the bid on the contract; or

(b) Was in violation of s. 440.10, s. 440.105, or s. 440.38 with respect to any contract performed by the plaintiff within 1 year before making the bid on the contract.

(7)(a) Any person who loses a competitive bid may petition the court to join in a suit brought under this section by another person against the winning bidder on the same contract and shall be joined in such suit. If more than one person is joined against the winning bidder and such persons prevail in the suit, the court must enter judgment dividing damages recoverable under this section between the parties equally.

(b) Any person who receives notice of a suit filed under this section and fails, within 20 days after receipt of such notice, to petition the court to join as a party to the suit is barred from bringing a cause of action under this section against the winning bidder on the contract at issue. For purposes of this subsection, publication in accordance with s. 49.10 constitutes sufficient notice.

History.—s. 11, ch. 93-415; s. 6, ch. 98-174; s. 18, ch. 2002-194.

F.S. 440.104 on Google Scholar

F.S. 440.104 on Casetext

Amendments to 440.104

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 440.104

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 440.104.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 440.104

Total Results: 12

Bell v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2016-10-28T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 201 So. 3d 1267, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16020

Snippet: Berkemer[v. McCarty], 468 U.S. [420,] 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 [(1984)]... ., In sum

State v. Janusheske

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2013-04-26T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 111 So. 3d 967, 2013 WL 1775529, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6741

Snippet: ”) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)); Hewitt v.

State v. Hinman

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2012-10-31T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 100 So. 3d 220, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18878, 2012 WL 5349657

Snippet: of Miranda.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). The Fourth

Caldwell v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2010-07-08T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 41 So. 3d 188, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 425, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1115, 2010 WL 2680254

Snippet: custody under Ramirez. See McCarty, 468 U.S. at 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138 (noting "the absence of any suggestion…omitted) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)). [6] But see

Rigterink v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2009-01-30T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 2 So. 3d 221, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 132, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 151, 2009 WL 217966

Snippet: prescribed by Miranda." Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138 (emphasis supplied). [24] The Miranda

Hewitt v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2006-02-17T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 920 So. 2d 802

Snippet: conclusion. In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), the United

State v. Dykes

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2002-05-02T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 816 So. 2d 179, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5894, 2002 WL 825943

Snippet: warnings. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). “If a motorist…rights were triggered. See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138. The facts here do not, in any event

Johnson v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2001-10-12T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 800 So. 2d 275

Snippet: to the dictates of Miranda." 468 U.S. at 440, 104 S.Ct. at 3150. Following the Berkemer decision

State v. Alvarez

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2001-02-07T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 776 So. 2d 1060, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1078, 2001 WL 98626

Snippet: of Miranda.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), see Pennsylvania

State v. Whelan

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1999-03-10T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 728 So. 2d 807, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2543, 1999 WL 123538

Snippet: of Miranda.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)2, see Pennsylvania

Charton v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1998-07-15T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 716 So. 2d 803

Snippet: ). [2] See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)(explaining that

State v. Burns

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1995-08-25T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 661 So. 2d 842

Snippet: the protections afforded by Miranda. 468 U.S. at 440, 104 S.Ct. at 3150.[2]See also Pennsylvania v. Bruder…associated with formal arrest.'" 468 U.S. at 440, 104 S.Ct. at 3150 (quoting California v. Beheler,