Nathan is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice on the defense of architects, engineers, owners, developers, general contractors, construction managers, subcontractors and design professionals from claims made against them.
Nathan received his juris doctor from Barry University School of Law. Prior to attending law school, he founded a media company that provided advertising services for local businesses and produced a local magazine that was published quarterly from 2016 to 2021. He received his bachelor's degree from Florida State University as an English major with a minor in Psychology.
In his free time, Nathan enjoys spending time with his wife and daughter as well as cheering on the Magic, Jaguars, and Seminoles.
Nathan is licensed to practice in the state of Florida.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
11th Circuit Upholds Arbitration in Construction Contract Dispute, Rejects Jurisdiction Challenge by Subcontractor
January 1, 2026
John Bell Construction (JBC) served as a subcontractor for Tutor Perini Corp. on the Miami-Dade County courthouse construction project for which Tutor Perini was the design-builder and Plenary Justice Miami, LLC (Plenary) was the developer.JBC sought to increase compensation for cement masons and tile setters from $13.76-$18.01 per hour to $32.09 per hour. Section E of the subcontract required JBC to present such claims to Tutor Perini, and Tutor Perini and Plenary would then present it to the county on JBC’s behalf. Tutor Perini and Plenary Justice presented the claim to the alternative-dispute hearing examiner designated by the parties, who rejected JBC’s claim.JBC then appealed the arbitration result, arguing the hearing examiner selected by the parties lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. However, on appeal, the 11th Circuit held that jurisdiction was “explicitly conferred” by the subcontract on whomever the County and the development team chose to resolve disputes. It further noted that there was no support at all for the idea that Florida law requires the use of a government hearing examiner rather than a private arbitration company.JBC also argued that “substitution of a private tribunal” required some sort of governmental act of approval. The 11th Circuit rejected this argument, both because there is no such requirement under Florida law and because the subcontract agreement itself was, in fact, signed by the mayor of Miami-Dade County and approved by its Board of Commissioners. As such, the 11th Circuit affirmed the arbitration ruling.
Case Law Alerts
Florida Appeals Court Reinstates Roofing Contractor’s Breach of Contract Claim After Standing Dispute
January 1, 2026
Florida Roof Masters (FRM) and Ms. Page signed a contract wherein FRM would provide roofing services at a cost of $18,000. Page paid $9,000 prior to services being completed but refused to pay the remaining balance upon completion. FRM hired a collection company to pursue the debt on their behalf, with their contract allowing the collection company to keep a percentage of the recovery as payment with the rest going to FRM.FRM later filed suit against Page, alleging breach of contract, among other issues. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Page as to the breach claim, finding that FRM did not have standing to bring this claim against Page because its contract with the collection company had assigned its rights under the original roofing contract to the collection company.On appeal, the 1st District Court of Appeal noted the collection contract referenced “assigned debt,” but it did not include a full and unconditional assignment of FRM’s interests in the original roofing contract. Insofar as there was any assignment at all, it was only the ability to sue on FRM’s behalf that was assigned; thus, FRM did not surrender its rights to enforce the original roofing contract. Therefore, all FRM would need to do to establish standing is to show it had a “direct and articulable stake in the outcome” of the controversy, which it did through its still-outstanding debt.As a result, the District Court reversed summary judgment as to FRM’s breach of contract claim and held that it did indeed have standing to sue Page for breach.
