In short: Not under the licensing statute alone, at least in this case. Chapter 489 says that, unless specifically provided, its contractor-licensing part does not create a civil cause of action. In Howansky v. Watts, a worker hurt while helping an unlicensed contractor replace a homeowner’s fence sued the homeowner only for violating Chapter 489. The Brevard trial court ruled for the homeowner, and the Fifth District affirmed without a written opinion on December 22, 2020.
The Facts
Ernest Watts hired Kory Nelson, who did not have a contractor’s license, to replace a fence at his property. Samuel S. Howansky worked on the job for Nelson and was seriously injured; his lawyer told the court he lost an eye. Howansky sued, and his third amended complaint against the homeowner rested only on violations of Chapter 489, Florida’s contractor licensing law. Howansky’s lawyer conceded that the homeowner did none of the work and did not supervise it.
The trial court ruled for the homeowner, and Howansky appealed (No. 5D2019-3344). The case was argued by Zoom in late 2020. The points below are what the lawyers argued, not findings by the court.
- Howansky argued that the owner-builder disclosure statement in section 489.103(7) warns owners they may be held liable for injuries to unlicensed workers, which only makes sense if the statute creates a duty and a remedy. Without it, he said, the law punishes unlicensed contractors but lets the homeowner who hired them off free.
- He also argued that the no-cause-of-action provision in section 489.131(12) applies to licensed contractors, not to a homeowner treated as a contractor for liability purposes.
- The homeowner argued that section 489.131(12) plainly covers all of Part I of Chapter 489, including section 489.103, and that Howansky’s position was a policy argument for the Legislature.
- The panel asked whether a fence job falls within the definition of contracting at all, and whether a court is the right branch to decide that policy question.
The Decision
The Fifth District affirmed on December 22, 2020, in a per curiam affirmance without a written opinion. It denied Howansky’s motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc and a written opinion on January 26, 2021, and the mandate issued February 15, 2021.
Because there is no opinion, the case does not say why the court affirmed. It does not hold that a homeowner can never be liable to an injured worker; Howansky’s complaint pleaded only Chapter 489 violations, not common-law negligence.
The Law
Section 489.131(12) says: “Unless specifically provided, the provisions of this part shall not be construed to create a civil cause of action.” That sentence was at the center of the argument.
Section 489.103(7) lets property owners act as their own contractor if they personally supervise the work, and requires them to sign a disclosure statement. The disclosure warns that the owner may not hire an unlicensed person to act as contractor and that the owner “may be held liable and subjected to serious financial risk for any injuries sustained by an unlicensed person.” The statute itself does not say that a homeowner who hires an unlicensed person becomes a contractor.
Other parts of Chapter 489 punish unlicensed contracting. For example, section 489.128 makes contracts entered into by an unlicensed contractor unenforceable by that contractor. A worker’s claim against a homeowner is more likely to rest on ordinary negligence principles, which turn on what the owner knew and controlled.
Lessons
- Homeowners should check a contractor’s license before hiring. The disclosure statement warns of financial risk even if this lawsuit failed.
- Injured workers should look to the employer’s workers’ compensation coverage and to common-law negligence claims, not just the licensing statute.
- Plead every viable theory. Howansky’s complaint relied only on Chapter 489.
- A per curiam affirmance decides only this case.
Watch the Oral Argument
These are two uploads of the same oral argument. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
📜 Hired an Unlicensed Worker? Florida Says You Might Be the Contractor
He Hired an Unlicensed Worker — Then Florida Called Him the Contractor
Go Deeper
- Unlicensed Contractor’s Lien and a Sanctions Award Reversed (MacAlister v. Bevis)
- Neighbor Fell Into a Hole From the Construction Site Next Door (Schramm v. Adams Homes)
- Contractor’s Owners Held Personally Liable, and Their Homestead Claim Failed (Munro v. Dickinson)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be sued if I hire an unlicensed contractor and a worker gets hurt?
You can be sued, and the owner-builder disclosure in section 489.103(7) warns of that risk. But in Howansky v. Watts, a claim based only on Chapter 489 failed, and the Fifth District affirmed without an opinion. Negligence claims depend on the facts.
Does Florida's contractor licensing law let me sue for violations?
Only where the statute specifically says so. Section 489.131(12) says Part I of Chapter 489 does not create a civil cause of action unless specifically provided.
Does a homeowner become the contractor by hiring an unlicensed worker?
The statute does not say so directly. Section 489.103(7) lets owners act as their own contractor if they supervise the work themselves and bars them from delegating that to an unlicensed person. The injured worker in Howansky argued the homeowner should be treated as the contractor, and lost.
Can an unlicensed contractor collect for the work?
Generally not through the courts. Section 489.128 makes contracts entered into by an unlicensed contractor unenforceable by the unlicensed contractor.
Talk to a Florida real estate litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida real estate disputes, title problems and appeals from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
