Opinion ID: 2791710
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Tile and the Mud Base

Text: The district court determined that the use of inadequate adhesive and an inadequate base in the installation of tile caused property damage to the tile. The damage award included the cost of replacing both the tile and the mud base itself. The district court found as a fact that this tile was purchased by the Carithers. (Mem. and Order, DE 126 at 7). Mid-Continent does not contend that this factual finding was clearly erroneous. Instead, Mid-Continent contends that the tile itself 19 Case: 14-11639 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 20 of 22 was part of the defective work of the sub-contractor. The Carithers respond that, since they separately purchased the tile, the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in Pozzi Window justifies the award. While a broad reading of Pozzi Window may support this award, such a reading is foreclosed by our decision in Auchter. As discussed above, the court in Auchter held that there is no coverage for a defective installation where there is no damage beyond the defective work of a single sub-contractor. Auchter, 673 F.3d at 1308. And, unlike the windows in Pozzi Window, it is immaterial whether the homeowner separately purchased the tile. Id. at 1308 n.20. Thus, as with the brick, this issue turns on whether the installation of the mud base and the installation of the tile were performed by the same sub-contractor. We have reviewed the evidence cited by the parties and find that there is no evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the tile and the mud base were installed by different sub-contractors. As with the brick, we conclude that the Carithers failed to meet their burden of proof on this issue. As noted previously, if the mud base and the tile were done by a single sub-contractor, then the damage to the tile was part of the sub-contractor’s work, and this defective work caused no damage apart from the defective work itself. For this reason, we reverse the district court’s award of damages for the tile and the mud base. 20 Case: 14-11639 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 21 of 22