COVENANT BAPTIST CHURCH
v.
VASALLO CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.
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.
This case clarifies when the statute of limitations begins to run for a leaking roof claim under Florida law. The court held that the clock starts when the owner has notice of the first leak, not when the specific cause is identified.
The statute of limitations begins to run when the owner has notice of the first roof leak, regardless of whether the specific cause of the leak is known.
[1] Under Florida law, the statute of limitations for a cause of action based on leaking roofs begins to run when the owner has notice of the first leak.
[2] A newly finished roof that leaks is considered obvious evidence that someone is at fault.
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“When a newly finished roof leaks it is not only apparent, but obvious, that someone is at fault.”
Establishes the presumption of fault when a new roof leaks.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant knew about roof leaks by 2006 but did not file a lawsuit until 2011. The court considered prior case law establishing that knowledge of …
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 Of Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
Under Florida law, “[w]hen a newly finished roof leaks it is not only apparent, but obvious, that someone is at fault.” Kelley v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cty., 435 So. 2d 804, 806 (Fla. 1983) (citation omitted).
Thus, “where a cause of action [is] specifically based on leaking roofs . . . the statute [of limitations] begins to run when an owner has notice of the first [roof] leak.” Dubin v. Dow Corning Corp., 478 So. 2d 71, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Here, it is well-documented that appellant had knowledge of the roof leaks by 2006, yet failed to file suit until 2011.
Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment under review. See § 95.11(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018); Kelley, 435 So. 2d at 806 (holding the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations where “the school board had knowledge of the defective roofs sufficient to put it on notice that it had, or might have had, a cause of action” since the roofs began to leak shortly after being finished, “more than four years prior to” filing the action); Conquistador Condo. VIII Ass’n, Inc. v. Conquistador Corp., 500 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding summary judgment based on the four-year statute of limitations was proper where the law suit was not filed until 1984 and the trial court concluded that “as a matter of law appellant had notice in 1979 that [the roof leaks] existed”); Dubin, 478 So. 2d at 73 (“[T]he cause of action accrued and the statute [of limitations] began to run in the summer . . . when [appellant] had notice of the first [roof] leaks.
Therefore, because appellant failed to file his complaint before the expiration of the four-year statute
of limitations . . . we must affirm” the trial court’s order granting summary judgment.); Havatampa Corp. v. McElvy, Jennewein, Stefany & Howard, Architects/Planners, Inc., 417 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (“On the day appellant took occupancy of the facility, it knew [the roof was leaking] . . . . Appellant cannot rely on a lack of knowledge of the specific cause of the problem to protect it against the expiration of the four year statute of limitations.”); K/F Dev. & Inv. Corp. v. Williamson Crane & Dozer Corp., 367 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (“The evidence is clear that the purchaser knew or should have known of the alleged defect when the roof began to leak, and this was more than four years prior to the filing of the law suit.”). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eoghan N. Kelley v. Sch. Bd. OF Seminole Cnty., 435 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1983)
- Havatampa Corp. v. McELVY, 417 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- K/F Dev. & Inv. Corp. v. Williamson Crane & Dozer Corp., 367 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Dubin v. DOW Corning Corp., 478 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Conquistador Condo. Viii Ass'n, Inc. v. Conquistador Corp., 500 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)