Florida Employment Law and The Use of Consistent Terminology
1/17/19
By: Michael Kouskoutis Florida’s First DCA recently reversed summary judgment in favor of Florida A&M University (FAMU) in a contract dispute with the school’s former head football and basketball coaches. The coaches both had 4-year contracts with the University, each with a specific end date and permitting early termination only in specific circumstances. Well before…
Circuits Now Split Three Ways Over False Claims Act Limitations Period
4/26/18
By: Robyn Flegal The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (governing Georgia, Alabama, and Florida), recently held that the three-year statute of limitations for the False Claims Act (FCA) begins when the government learns of alleged violations of the FCA, rather than when a whistleblower/relator learns of alleged violations. As we previously explained in the FMGBlogLine,…
Georgia Adopts Protection for Design Professionals from Hold Harmless Clauses
5/11/16
By: Bart Gary Georgia recently adopted legislation that declares an indemnity or hold harmless agreement in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services against public policy and void and unenforceable. The legislation excepts, and therefore permits, indemnification for losses and damages, “to the extent caused by…
9/2/15
By: Mike Wolak Restrictive covenants typically involve the “big three”: agreements not to compete, not to solicit the Company’s customers, and not to raid the Company’s staff upon separation from employment. As a result, the language of the “big three” must be given careful thought when drafting the employee’s agreement. Recent state and federal appellate…
Georgia Court of Appeals: General Conditions Costs and Interest Cannot Be Included in Claim of Lien
7/12/12
By: Kamy Molavi
On July 11, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of 182 Tenth, LLC v. Manhattan Construction Company (2012 WL 2819414). The Court ruled that “items of general conditions costs described in the payment applications were not lienable because they were not labor, services, or materials which