Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 9, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-553

Lower Tribunal No. 17-802K

________________

Monroe County,

Appellant,

vs.

Ashbritt, Inc., 

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Monroe

County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge.

Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., Jeffrey 

L. Hochman and Selena A. Gibson (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim, & Simowitz, P.A., Michael W. Moskowitz, 

William G. Salim, Jr., and Ari J. Glazer (Fort Lauderdale); Smith Hawks, P.L., 

and Barton W. Smith, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

BOKOR, J.
2

Along with death and taxes, Florida provides one other certainty—

hurricanes. The intensity, duration, and exact location of these terrible forces 

are left to prediction, prognostication, and a good deal of planning (and 

prayer). Against this backdrop and in preparation for the upcoming hurricane 

season, in early summer 2017, appellant, Monroe County, contracted with 

appellee, Ashbritt, Inc., for disaster response and recovery services. In early 

September, 2017, Hurricane Irma wrought devastation on the Keys. The

County tasked Ashbritt with removal of putrefied waste from temporary sites1

and hauling debris to locations miles away from the sites chosen by Ashbritt 

and specified in the contract. Due to the scope of the destruction, the County 

also contracted with the Florida Department of Transportation to assist with 

debris removal. The question on appeal turns on whether the agreement 

between the County and Ashbritt may provide recourse for Ashbritt’s claims 

for extra compensation, as the trial court concluded, or, as the County argues 

here, whether sovereign immunity bars recovery. As explained below, we 

agree with the trial court’s extensive and well-reasoned analysis concluding 

1 Putrefied waste removal is to be distinguished from debris removal. 

Putrefied waste consists of decomposition of organic matters such as food 

and other products which deteriorate quickly. Putrefied waste removal 

involves removing putrefied waste and food from refrigerators and freezers 

located at temporary sites for transport to landfills. 
3

that factual disputes over the contract terms prevent entry of summary 

judgment in favor of the County on sovereign immunity grounds.

No one quibbles with the fact that “where the state has entered into a 

contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense 

of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the 

state’s breach of that contract.” Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t. of Corr., 

471 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984). Things get more interesting when we reconcile 

this principle with another equally well-settled principle of sovereign 

immunity as applied to commercial transactions—that the doctrine of 

sovereign immunity precludes recovery of the cost of extra work where 

claims for that extra work are “totally outside” the terms of the contract. 

County of Brevard v. Miorelli Eng’g, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 1997). 

Therefore, we must examine whether the parties’ agreement contemplated 

Ashbritt’s disposal of putrefied waste and Ashbritt’s hauling of debris to 

locations miles farther away than it planned. 

Analyzing the doctrine of sovereign immunity as applied to contractrelated claims, the Fifth District Court of Appeal explained:

In this case, the essence of this dispute is whether the original 

contract specifications and engineering requirements 

encompassed the work W&J claims was above and beyond that 

originally required by the contract. If it did, then W&J is entitled 

to no additional compensation. If it did not, because the 

appellees required W&J to do the work yet failed to issue a 
4

change order as it should have done pursuant to the contract, 

W&J may be entitled to compensation.

W&J Constr. Corp. v. Fanning/Howey Assocs., 741 So. 2d 582, 584 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 1999). In W&J, the court concluded that the work involved was not 

properly characterized as extra work performed “outside” the contract. Id. 

Therefore, the issue “remain[ed] in dispute,” and the court reversed the trial 

court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the school board. Id. at 

585. 

The Fourth District Court of Appeal applied a similar analysis, partially 

reversing the trial court’s finding of sovereign immunity on claims related to 

executed change orders:

Here, the school board actually issued a change order for the 

additional work, thereby acknowledging that the required work 

was not within the scope of the original contract. As in W&J, 

COBAD could perform the work under protest and later bring suit 

to recover damages for having been required to perform the extra 

work for an inadequate price. As such, a genuine issue of 

material fact exists as to whether the price specified in the 

change order was reasonable.

C.O.B.A.D. Constr. Corp. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 765 So. 2d 844, 846 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2000). At the same time, the court, applying Miorelli, 

recognized that sovereign immunity barred recovery for those claims for 

“additional compensation for extra work that was not included in the original 

contract or any subsequent written change order.” Id. at 845-46.
5

Ashbritt alleges that the County, like the school boards in C.O.B.A.D.

and W&J, acknowledged and required the additional work. Here, Ashbritt 

submitted a proposed amendment to the contract to add a line item and price 

for removal of putrefied waste, pursuant to an express provision in the 

contract providing an amendment procedure. The County refused the 

amendment, asserting that contract included the disputed work. Ashbritt 

continued to work, under protest, and brought a claim for damages.

Recognizing the disputed issue of fact regarding the scope of work, the trial 

court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment based on sovereign 

immunity, pursuant to, inter alia, W&J. 

Miorelli explains that “[b]inding the sovereign to the implied covenants 

of an express contract is quite different from requiring a sovereign to pay for 

work not contemplated by that contract.” 703 So. 2d at 1051.2 The parties

dispute whether the work performed constituted work “totally outside the 

terms of the contract,” extra work done at the County’s behest in furtherance 

2 The trial court essentially applied this principle from Miorelli to the facts of 

the case, as did the district court in Posen Construction, Inc. v. Lee County, 

921 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (relying on Miorelli, 703 So. 2d 

at 1051) (“A claim for damages predicated on work ‘totally outside the terms 

of the contract’ is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, whereas 

damages caused by extra work done at the state’s behest and in furtherance 

of the contractual covenants (express or implied) are potentially 

recoverable.”). 
6

of express or implied contractual covenants, or work done as part of the 

express contract terms. Ashbritt presented evidence at summary judgment 

that the contract language included an amendment procedure, that the 

County required the additional work, that this additional work should have 

been added on as an amendment per industry custom, and that the failure 

to amend after requiring the additional work constituted a breach of the 

contract’s express and implied duties and covenants. The County argues 

that the work was included in the contract terms or constituted gratuitous 

work outside the scope of the contract. Accordingly, the trial court correctly 

identified issues of fact regarding the application of summary judgment

based on a claim of sovereign immunity and denied the County’s motion. 

Affirmed.