DOROTHY DUBOSE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN MICHAEL WILSON, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SURVIVORS OF JOHN MICHAEL WILSON, DECEASED, DOROTHY DUBOSE AND JOHN E. WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA, A BODY CORPORATE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the School Board of Alachua County could not connect to the City of Newberry's sewer system without paying front foot assessments, as the statute intended to prevent assessments without agreement, not to exempt school property entirely.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling, finding that the statute's intent was to prevent assessments without agreement, not to exempt school property from all assessments, and therefore the School Board was subject to front foot assessments.
[1] A wrongful death action against a state agency or subdivision is governed by the four-year statute of limitations provided in § 768.28(11), Fla.Stat., when that statute i…
[2] When a different statute prescribes a specific time within which an action may be brought, that prescribed time controls over the general limitations set forth in Chapter…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Newberry appealed a trial court judgment that allowed the School Board of Alachua County to connect to the City's sewer system without pay…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statute Of Limitations Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her wrongful death complaint with prejudice on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. Appellant, a survivor of a minor decedent who died on February 15, 1977, filed her complaint for wrongful death against appellee School Board of Alachua County and its insurer, appellee Auto Owners Insurance Company, on April 23,1979. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss alleging that appellant had not filed her wrongful death action within the two-year statute of limitations set forth in § 95.11(4)(d), Fla.Stat.
Appellant asserted that the four-year limitation set forth in § 768.28, Fla.Stat., was the applicable statute of limitations in this case against Ala-chua County.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling § 95.11(4)(d) to be the applicable statute.
We reverse.
Section 768.28, Fla.Stat., provides the waiver of sovereign immunity which allows appellant to bring suit against the School Board of Alachua County. The unambiguous language of that statute allows wrongful death actions to be brought against the state and its agencies or subdivisions subject to the limitations specified therein. See § 768.28(1).
Section 768.28(11) establishes a four-year statute of limitations for such actions. It should further be noted that Chapter 95, Fla.Stat., which provides limitations of actions for various categories of actions and which sets forth a limitation of two years within which an action for wrongful death may be brought [§ 95.-ll(4)(d), Fla.Stat.], provides that if a different time is provided elsewhere in the statutes within which an action may be brought, the action must be brought “within the time prescribed elsewhere.” Section 95.011, Fla.Stat. Considering Chapter 95 in pari materia with § 768, it is obvious that the applicable statute of limitations for the present action is the four-year time period set forth in § 768.28(11), Fla.Stat.
Reversed.
MILLS, C. J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beard v. Hambrick, 396 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1981)…period for all actions brought under section 768.28. We base this belief on the prerequisite notice provisions of this section and the need to have a uniform period for actions against governmental entities. See DuBose v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 387 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Another issue in this cause concerns the continued applicability of a sheriff’s liability under the provisions of section 30.-07, Florida Statutes (1973). We have found that section 768.28 applies to sheriffs, although with lim…
-
Whitney v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 416 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…its face, therefore, because the Hospital is admittedly a State agency, chapter 95 unambiguously requires application of the limitation period provided in § 768.28(11) for tort actions against the state. See DuBose v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 387 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Thus, even if we were to ignore the applicability of the tolling provision of section 768.44(4) during the pendency of the medi [*502] cal mediation proceeding,1 it is clear that less than four years elapsed from either the dat…
-
Showell Indus., Inc. v. Holmes Cnty., 409 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…inst the State controls over the one-year statutory period allowed in the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, § 768.31(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). See Beard v. Hambrick, 396 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1981), and Dubose v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 387 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), regarding a conflict between the statute of limitations for claims against the State and the general statute of limitation for wrongful death actions. [*80] Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and the cause rem…