CARL HICKEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DUNN & COREY, ETC., 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.
Court reversed dismissal of legal malpractice claim and remanded to permit amendment alleging lack of direct privity, which triggers a four-year limitations period instead of two years under Florida Statutes section 95.11(4)(a).
A legal malpractice plaintiff not in direct privity with the defendant attorney is entitled to a four-year limitations period rather than two years, and the trial court erred in denying amendment based on prematurely applying the shorter period.
[1] A legal malpractice plaintiff not in direct privity with the defendant professional is entitled to a four-year limitations period under Florida Statutes section 95.11(4)(…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 limitation of actions herein for professional malpractice shall be limited to persons in privity with the professional”
Statutory language from section 95.11(4)(a) establishing that the two-year period applies only to those in privity with the professional
Hickey, a member of a pre-paid legal services plan, brought a legal malpractice action against Dunn & Corey. The trial court denied his proposed amend…
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 Professional Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order appealed and remand this legal malpractice action to the trial court to permit the appellant to amend his complaint to allege that, as a member of a pre-paid legal services plan, he had not been in direct privity with the attorneys alleged to have committed the alleged malpractice. It appears that the trial court declined to permit the amendment, having concluded that the two-year professional malpractice limitations period of section 95.11(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) had passed, thus plaintiffs proposed amendment would be futile. However, section 95.11(4)(a)1 excludes from the two-year period those actions where persons are not in direct privity with the professional, thus the limitations period for such exclusions is four years. See Baskerville-Donovan Eng’rs, Inc. v. Pensacola Executive House Condominium Ass’n, 581 So. 2d 1301 (Fla.1991); Archey v. Government Healthcare Servs., 718 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Silva v. Southwest Fla. Blood Bank, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1992).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to permit the amendment.
. The section reads:
“(4) WITHIN TWO YEARS.—
(a) An action for professional malpractice, other than medical malpractice, whether founded on contract or tort; provided that the period of limitations shall run from the time the cause of action is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. However, the limitation of actions herein for professional malpractice shall be limited to persons in privity with the professional.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Lowery v. State, 766 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ppellant’s gain-time challenge must first be entertained in the Department of Corrections. If the appellant is not satisfied with its ruling, then he can file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). AFFIRMED; STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
RAY v. State, 772 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…lorida Statutes (1995), made by chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida.1 We do not address the merits of this claim because Ray must first present this claim through the administrative channels of the Department of Corrections (DOC). See Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If Ray is not satisfied with the ruling of the DOC, he can then file a petition for mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So. 2d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Affirmed. PARKER, A.C.J., and WHAT…
-
Gatto v. State, 768 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…for offenses occurring in 1996. The trial court correctly denied appellant’s gain-time challenge, but denial should be without prejudice to his right to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections. See Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s other sentencing challenge under Heggs without record attachments. Appellant appears to fall within the appropriate window period to make his sentencing challenge.…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Silva v. Sw. Fla. Blood Bank, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1992)
- Baskerville-Donovan Eng'rs, Inc. v. Pensacola Executive House Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 581 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 1991)
- Archey v. Gov't Healthcare Servs., 718 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)