Case Name: The MANORS OF INVERRARY XII CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. ATRECO-FLORIDA INC., City of Lauderhill, Florida, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-09-28
Citations: 438 So. 2d 490
Docket Number: No. 81-138
Parties: The MANORS OF INVERRARY XII CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. ATRECO-FLORIDA INC., City of Lauderhill, Florida, et al., Appellees.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 490–499

Head Matter:
The MANORS OF INVERRARY XII CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. ATRECO-FLORIDA INC., City of Lauderhill, Florida, et al., Appellees.
No. 81-138.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 28, 1983.
Robert J. Manne of Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Joseph S. Kashi of Conrad, Scherer & James, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee City of Lauderhill.

Opinion:
DOWNEY, Judge.
The issue involved in this appeal is whether the doctrine of governmental immunity protects a municipality from liability for the negligence of its building inspector in approving plans, specifications and construction which do not meet the requirements of the applicable building code. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the City, appellee states, on the ground of sovereign immunity.
Appellant, a condominium association, filed this class action on behalf of its unit owners pursuant to Rule 1.221, Fla.R.Civ.P., against the developer, general contractor, architect and the City of Lauderhill. While the complaint alleges numerous defects in the construction Count III of the amended complaint against the City alleged that the City was negligent in failing to properly examine the plans and specifications and properly inspect the premises before issuing a building permit and certificate of occupancy. As a result, it is alleged, the improvements fail to meet the requirements of the South Florida Building Code in numerous respects. The City's motion to dismiss on the ground that it was entitled to sovereign immunity because the enforcement of the building code is a discretionary function was granted. From a final judgment dismissing the City, appellant has perfected this appeal. We reiterate that the sole question argued on appeal is whether the activities of a city building inspector in approving plans, specifications and construction is discretionary planning activity or operational activity.
The building code in effect in the City of Lauderhill is the South Florida Building Code adopted by special act of the legislature for Broward County in Chapter 71-575, Laws of Florida. The code provides that application for a building permit must be accompanied by two sets of plans for the proposed improvement. The Building Official is then required to examine the plans to determine their compliance with the building code. If they comply, he issues a building permit; if not, the plans are rejected. After issuance of a permit, the code requires periodic inspections. If the construction meets code requirements and is approved a certificate of occupancy is ultimately issued. Appellant contends the City Building Official approved plans and specifications which did not meet code requirements and that he approved on-site construction which also violated the code.
Appellant's position is that the City is liable for its negligence in not requiring compliance with the building code because the enforcement of the code is an operational activity. The City, on the other hand, argues that the Building Official's function is discretionary and part of his planning activity and thus remains cloaked with sovereign immunity. The planning-operational dichotomy was introduced into the jurisprudence of this state in Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla.1979) and now controls the determination of which governmental functions are still protected by sovereign immunity and which are not pursuant to the waiver provisions of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1981).
We agree with appellant that when the City decided to employ the South Florida Building Code as its standard for construction, it was engaged in discretionary or planning activity. The examination of plans and specifications for the issuance of a building permit and on-site inspections to determine compliance with code requirements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy are operational activities. We reach that determination by applying the Commercial Carrier four-prong test adopted from Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246, 407 P.2d 440 (1965). Without exploring all 'facets of ap-pellee's argument, suffice it to say that we are in accord with the recent decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, 423 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Virtually all of appellee's arguments were adequately answered in that case (which decision was filed after the rendition of the judgment in this case).
Perceiving the question involved in this case to be one of great public importance, we certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida:
Should the negligent conduct of a building inspector in approving plans, specifications, and construction that do not meet the requirements of the applicable building code be considered "operational" conduct for which the municipality may be held liable in damages or "discretionary" conduct to which sovereign immunity would apply?
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents with opinion.