JOSEPH J. JOZWIAK, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT LEONARD, AS SHERIFF OF SUWANNEE COUNTY, AND SUWANNEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court held that the notice requirements of section 768.28(6) must be satisfied before suing the government, even when liability insurance has been purchased pursuant to section 286.28. The Court rejected the argument that the purchase of liability insurance negates the statutory notice requirement.
No. The notice requirements of section 768.28(6) must be met even where insurance has been procured pursuant to section 286.28. There is no contradiction between the two statutes, and both can be given effect simultaneously. Satisfaction of the notice requirement is a condition precedent to suit against the government.
[1] The purchase of liability insurance by a governmental entity does not negate the plaintiff's obligation to comply with statutory notice provisions prior to filing suit.
[2] Compliance with statutory notice provisions is a condition precedent to bringing suit against the government.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Satisfaction of the notice requirement is a condition precedent to suit against the government.”
Establishes that the notice requirement in section 768.28(6) is a mandatory prerequisite to any lawsuit against the government, regardless of insurance status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJozwiak sought to sue the Sheriff of Suwannee County and Suwannee County after the county had purchased liability insurance. Jozwiak argued that becau…
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 Notice Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We review Jozwiak v. Leonard, 504 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), to answer a certified question of great public importance.
DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING, IN AVALLONE V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CITRUS COUNTY, 493 So. 2d 1002 (Fla.1986), ... THAT THE PURCHASE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.28 CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UP TO THE LIMITS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE NEGATE THE NECESSITY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 768.28(6) FOUND BY THIS COURT IN BURKETT V. CALHOUN COUNTY, 441 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)?
Id. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve the decision below and answer the question in the negative.
The issue is “whether the notice requirements of section 768.28(6) must be met where insurance has been procured pursuant to section 30.55 or section 286.28.” 504 So. 2d at 1262. The district court below canvassed the case law and concluded that notice was required. Petitioner argues that there is no notice requirement contained in section 30.55 and that therefore the notice requirement in section 768.28(6) should not be given effect. This argument is meritless. There is no contradiction between the two statutes nor is there any reason why both statutes cannot be given effect. Satisfaction of the notice requirement is a condition precedent to suit against the government. Levine v. Dade County School Board, 442 So. 2d 210, 213 (Fla.1983). Accord Burkett v. Calhoun County, 441 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Cf. Ingraham v. Dade County School Board, 450 So. 2d 847 (Fla.1984) (the twenty-five percent limitation on attorney fees in section 768.28 applies regardless of whether liability insurance is purchased). Avallone, on which petitioner relies, is off point and not to the contrary. There we addressed the issue of whether a government unit which had purchased liability insurance could also claim sovereign immunity. We held that it could not because to do so would have been directly contrary to section 286.28. We note, but do not rely on, the recent enactment of chapter 87-134, section 4, Laws of Florida, repealing sections 30.55 and 286.28.
We answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Redner v. Citrus Cnty., 710 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Fla. 1989)…768.28(6). Count II is a pendent cause of action based in Florida law. Florida courts strictly apply § 768.28(6) as a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action against a political subdivision of the state, E.g., Jozwiak v. Leonard, 513 So.2d 666, 667 (Fla.1987). Application of the Erie doctrine, Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), demands that state notice of claim provisions be respected in the exercise of this Court’s pendent jurisdiction.…
Authorities Cited
- Levine v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 442 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1983)
- Avallone v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Citrus Cnty., 493 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1986)
- Bernadette Ingraham v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 450 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1984)
- Lawana Burkett and Janice Maddox v. Calhoun Cnty., 441 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Jozwiak v. Leonard, 504 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)