COVENANT BAPTIST CHURCH
v.
VASALLO CONSTRUCTION
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.
A cause of action for roof defects is barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations when the property owner had notice of the first leak more than four years before filing suit.
[1] In an action for roof defects, the statute of limitations begins to run when the property owner has notice of the first leak, not when the owner discovers the underlying…
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“When a newly finished roof leaks it is not only apparent, but obvious, that someone is at fault.”
Court quoting Kelley v. School Board of Seminole County to establish that roof leaks constitute obvious defects triggering notice for statute of limitations purposes.
Covenant Baptist Church owned a property with a roof that leaked. The church had documented knowledge of the roof leaks by 2006 but did not file suit …
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 Construction Defects 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
2 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.
3
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)