DAVID BLIZZARD, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
W.H. ROOF CO., INC., ETC., RESPONDENT
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 upheld the constitutionality of shortened one-year statutes of limitation in sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.68 that apply to negligence claims against insureds whose insurers have become insolvent, narrowing the otherwise applicable four-year statute of limitations. The Court affirmed the district court's decision, which had rejected constitutional challenges to these provisions.
The statutes are constitutional. The Court affirmed the summary judgment for W.H. Roof Co. and declared sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.68 constitutional, adopting the district court's analysis and reasoning as its own.
[1] Statutes imposing a one-year limitation period for negligence actions against an insured whose insurer has become insolvent are constitutional.
[2] The legislature may enact statutes to protect injured parties and insureds when an insurance company becomes insolvent.
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 intelligence“The shortened limitation statutes are part of the legislature's effort to protect both injured parties and previously insured persons when an insurance company becomes insolvent.”
Explains the legislative purpose behind the challenged statutes as a protective mechanism for multiple stakeholders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlizzard and others filed a negligence action against W.H. Roof Co. after the company's insurer became insolvent. The defendants moved for summary jud…
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 Constitutional Muster cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
We review Blizzard v. W.H. Roof Co., 556 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), because the district court ruled on the constitutionality of sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.-68, Florida Statutes (1987), insofar as the one-year limitation contained therein operates to shorten the four-year statute of limitations for a negligence action against an insured whose insurer has become insolvent. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We find the statutes constitutional and approve Blizzard.
The shortened limitation statutes are part of the legislature’s effort to protect both injured parties and previously insured persons when an insurance company becomes insolvent. In creating the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA), the legislature sought to assure a mechanism whereby injured parties could collect funds otherwise owed by an insurance carrier.1 It also safeguarded those who had sought to protect themselves by purchasing insurance policies. To effectuate its intentions, the legislature found it necessary to limit the time for filing claims. In 1983 the legislature added the phrase “and the insured” to section 631.68, thereby extending the one-year time limit to actions against insureds and added subsection 95.11(5)(d) to the statutes. Ch. 83-38, §§ 33, 34, Laws of Fla. Even though legislation may be wise or warranted, it must still pass constitutional muster. Blizzard raised several constitutional challenges, each of which is addressed in the opinion under review. Because we find the district court’s analysis correct and adequately comprehensive, we feel it unnecessary to restate and discuss it here. Instead, we adopt the opinion under review as our own.2 We declare sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.-68, Florida Statutes (1987), constitutional and approve the decision under review, which affirmed the summary judgment entered for W.H. Roof Co. It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., and EHRLICH, Senior Justice, concur. . We found the statute creating FIGA constitutional in O’Malley v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 257 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1971).
. Included in the district court’s opinion is a reference to Queen v. Clearwater Electric, Inc., 555 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), wherein the second district upheld the time limitations of the statute, but also ruled that the statute would be inapplicable to claims above the policy limits. Whether such an excess claim can be filed beyond the time limits is not an issue in this case and has not been argued. Although the reasoning of Queen appears to be sound, because it was not argued before us or the district court of appeal, we deem it inappropriate to approve or disapprove that part of Queen which excludes claims above the policy limits from operation of the statute.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. Russell Snyder, W. Russell Snyder, P.A. v. Douglas, 647 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…rticle I, § 21, of the Florida Constitution as impermissibly delaying Plaintiffs [sic] access to the Courts of this State to pursue their claims against these Defendants.” We respectfully disagree with this conclusion. In Blizzard v. W.H. Roof Co., 573 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1991), one of the issues confronted by the court was whether section 631.68, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides for a shortened statute of limitations in bringing claims under the FIGA Act, violated the access to the courts provision of ar…1 / 2
-
Univ. OF Miami v. Echarte, 585 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…he Florida Supreme Court has consistently “recognized that statutes of repose are a valid legislative means to restrict or limit causes of action in order to achieve certain public interests.” Carr, 541 So. 2d at 95; Blizzard v. W.H. Roof Co., Inc., 573 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1991). Here, however, the statute eliminates all recovery in excess of the cap. The supreme court has not recognized the necessity of limiting noneconomic damages absent an alternative remedy or a commensurate benefit.21 See generally, Smith; F…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Warren, 805 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…eating an insurmountable obstacle to his right to access to the courts); Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Medical, Inc., 753 So. 2d 55 (Fla.2000). See also Blizzard v. W.H. Roof Co., Inc., 556 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), approved by, 573 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1991)(un-der Florida law there is no constitutional violation where a statute merely shortens the time period during which an action may be brought). The requirement that a statement be rendered in a timely manner is satisfied by a simple manag…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- O'Malley v. The Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 257 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1971)
- Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kalesa, 555 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Scott v. State, 555 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Blizzard v. W.H. Roof Co., Inc., 556 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)