KAREN L. ROSS AND ROBERT A. ROSS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
TWENTY-FOUR COLLECTION, INC., ET AL., 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 tort claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the breach of contract claim was not actionable because the employment contract was terminable at will.
Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and other tort claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, related to alleged sexual harass…
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 Termination At Will cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Karen Ross and her husband Robert Ross from an adverse summary judgment in an action for breach of contract and other tort claims. We affirm.
First, the various tort claims pled in the complaint, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, are, as a matter of law, barred by the four-year statute of limitations for tort claims. Section 95.-ll(3)(p), Fla.Stat. (1989). These causes of action accrued no later than April 11, 1984, when the plaintiff Karen Ross was allegedly forced to resign her employment with the defendant Twenty-Four Collection, Inc. after enduring several years of sexual harassment on the job. The complaint herein was filed on April 10, 1989, approximately five years later, and was therefore clearly barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
Second, the breach of contract claim is not actionable as a matter of law because it is based on a contract of employment which does not provide for a definite term of employment and was therefore terminable at will. No action may be maintained for the breach of an employment contract terminable at will. See Savannah, F. & W. Ry. v. Willett, 43 Fla. 311, 31 So. 246 (1901); Maguier v. American Family Life Assurance Co., 442 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1984); DeMarco v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 360 So. 2d 134, 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), aff'd, 384 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1980).
Finally, the punitive damages counts of the complaint for breach of contract based on the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress are obviously barred because neither of the underlying contract or tort claims are viable on this record for the reasons already stated.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spanish Broad. Sys. OF Fla., Inc. v. Alfonso, 689 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…station after his termination of the prior written contract was always terminable at will and not subject to a breach of contract action. DeMarco v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 384 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1980); Ross v. Twenty-Four Collection, Inc., 617 So. 2d 428, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Finally, we also agree with SBS that Alfonso’s purported conversion count was actionable only in contract, therefore, SBS was entitled to a directed verdict on this tort action as well. Specifically, the evidence in support…
-
Ocean Club Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Curtis, 934 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…gment against him on his claim for breach of contract. See DeMarco v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 384 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1980); Spanish Broadcasting Sys. of Fla., Inc. v. Alfonso, 689 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ross v. Twenty-Four Collection, Inc., 617 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Crawford v. David Shapiro & Co., 490 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Mayo v. Highland Park Hosp. Corp., 460 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We do not pass upon any issue relating to the recovery of attorney’s fees for conversion…
-
Kupscznk v. Blasters, Inc., 647 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ent. Furthermore, there existed no payment precondition for the enforcement of the covenant. More important, however, is the fact that Kupscznk’s employment lacked the essential term of duration. As was said in Ross v. Twenty-Four Collection, Inc., 617 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), [T]he breach of contract claim is not actionable as a matter of law because it is based on a contract of employment which does not provide for a definite term of employment and was therefore terminable at will. No action may be…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DeMARCO v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 384 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1980)
- DeMARCO v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 360 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Savannah v. Willett, 43 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1901)
- Jaffe v. Adolph Schwartz, 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- West v. State, 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)