FRANK MARANO AND LOIS MARANO, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION, EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., H.K. PORTER COMPANY, INC., COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., 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 court held that the Florida Borrowing Statute of Limitations applies to actions arising in foreign states barred by those states' statutes of limitations.
Plaintiff allegedly incurred an asbestos injury in New York or New Jersey between 1943-1945, discovered it in 1975, and filed suit in Florida in 1979.…
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 Choice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Frank Maraño allegedly incurred an asbestos injury in either New York or New Jersey between the years 1943 to 1945, but, did not discover it until 1975. He did not file the instant suit in the State of Florida until 1979. Said suit was without the three year statute of limitations as provided for in the State of New York and without the two year statute of limitations as provided for in the State of New Jersey.
We find no error in the trial court’s awarding the defendants a summary judgment and applying the Florida Borrowing Statute of Limitations1 to an injury alleged to have arisen in a foreign state which would be barred in said foreign jurisdiction by the applicable local statute of limitations. Calhoun v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 265 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1972); Lescard v. Keel, 211 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corporation, 401 F. 2d 593 (5th Cir.1968); DeVane v. United States, 259 F.Supp. 18 (D.Puerto Rico 1966); Compare: A-1 Truck Service, Inc. v. Kivenas, 371 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Therefore the summary judgment here under review is affirmed.
. Sec. 95.10 Fla.Stat. (1979) Causes of action arising out of the state. — When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Celotex Corp. v. Carmella Meehan, 523 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1988)…or should have known through the exercise of due diligence,” that his cause of action existed more than four years prior to filing the action in this state. Id. at 1103. In so holding, the district court overruled its decision in Marano v. Celotex, 433 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983). Chief Judge Schwartz dissented, stating: “The court’s decision has resuscitated an action which has been barred for over thirty years in New York, where the defendants’ allegedly wrongful act…
-
Carmella Meehan v. The Celotex Corp., 466 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…imitations of the state where the tort was committed. But section 95.10 makes the New York, not the Florida, statute of limitations determinative. Unlike Judge Hubbart, I believe the court’s holding is directly contrary to Mar-año v. Celotex Corp., 433 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983). Unlike the panel, I believe that Maraño was correctly decided in accordance with the intent and purpose of the borrowing statute. Although we may all share a fundamental disagree…1 / 5
Authorities Cited
- Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Colhoun v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 265 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1972)
- In re Est. of C. N. Shelton, 211 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- A-1 Truck Serv., Inc. v. Kivenas, 371 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 401 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968)