AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, F/U/B BUILDERS MANUFACTURING CO., A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appealed a judgment rendered against it as surety on a construction contract. The key issue was whether a one-year statute of limitations under Florida law applied to a materialman's claim against the general contractor and surety, or whether a longer 20-year period applied. The appellate court reversed, holding that the one-year statute of limitations governed and that the claim was therefore barred.
The one-year statute of limitations under § 255.05 applied because the cause of action arose (upon breach of the contract) after the statute became effective in June 1963, even though the underlying contract was executed before that date. Since suit was not brought until almost two years after the alleged breach, the claim was barred.
“Although the contract between Lamb and Builders Manufacturing Company was executed before the effective date of the statute of limitations in § 255.05, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., Builders Manufacturing Company had no cause of action nor claim against Lamb until the contract was breached. This did not occur until after September 18, 1963. The one-year statute of limitations of § 255.05, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., was in full effect on that date and applied to Builders Manufacturing Company's claim.”
Establishes the key principle that the statute of limitations is determined when the cause of action arises (at breach), not when the contract was formed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl Lamb, a general contractor, contracted with Builders Manufacturing Company in March 1963 for doors and frames for a school construction project. …
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 Unconstitutional Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant below, appeals from an adverse judgment rendered by the Civil and Criminal Court of Record for Pinellas County.
In March of 1963, a general contractor, one Earl Lamb, entered into a contract with Builders Manufacturing Company for the supply of doors and frames for the construction of Azalea Junior High School in St. Petersburg, Florida. Lamb was the general contractor for the Azalea job, and defendant company was surety for the project pursuant to Section 255.05, Fla.Stats., F.S.A. In July, August and September of 1963, Builders Manufacturing Company delivered materials to the job site. Its final delivery was made on September 18, 1963.
More than one year after its last delivery of materials to the construction site and *42more than one year after having received its last payment on the contract, appellee board of public instruction filed suit for the use and benefit of Builders Manufacturing Company against Lamb and defendant seeking the balance due on the contract. One of defendant’s defenses to the suit was that Builders Manufacturing Company’s claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations of § 255.05, Fla.Stats., F.S.A. The trial judge struck this defense, ruling that the 20-year statute of limitations of § 95.11(1), Fla.Stats., F.S.A., governed. That ruling is the subject of this appeal.
The portion of § 255.05, Fla.Stats., F.S. A., providing a one-year statute of limitations on claims against the general contractor and his surety was added by amendment in 1959. Ch. 59-491, Laws of Florida, 1959. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Florida in 1963 because of the Legislature’s failure to reenact § 255.05 and publish it at length as required by Article III, Sec. 16 of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 153 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1963). The Legislature corrected this oversight, and the one-year statute of limitations became law in June of 1963. Ch. 63-437, Laws of Florida, 1963.
Although the contract between Lamb and Builders Manufacturing Company was executed before the effective date of the statute of limitations in § 255.05, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., Builders Manufacturing Company had no cause of action nor claim against Lamb until the contract was breached. This did not occur until after September 18, 1963. The one-year statute of limitations of § 255.05, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., was in full effect on that date and applied to Builders Manufacturing Company’s claim. Since that company did not bring suit until almost two years later, its claim was barred by statute of limitations in § 255.05, Fla. Stats., F.S.A. The trial court therefore erred in striking defendant company’s defense based on said statute and in entering judgment against it.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed is reversed.
ALLEN, C. J., and WINGFIELD, ROBT. H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sw. Fla. Ret. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 682 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee, 678 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1996); Roth v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Mason v. Yarmus, 483 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Pinellas County, 195 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Fradley v. County of Dade, 187 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). [*1135] We reverse the judgment on the pleadings and remand to the trial court with directions that appellant’s and cross-appellant’s causes of action be reinstated. T…
-
Logan v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 208 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…formance of the contract? We were called upon in a previous case before this court to decide the statute of limitations of such a performance bond. In Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Board of Public Instruction of Pinellas County, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 41, it was held that there was a one year statute of limitation in which a suit could be brought against the general contractor or his surety. Fla.Stat. § 255.05, F.S.A. This meant,one year from the date of the completion of the contract. According to…
-
United States v. Donald M. Kass, M.D., 740 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1984)…ctions is that the cause accrues at the time of the breach. United States v. Bragg, 493 F.Supp. 470, 475 (M.D.Fla. 1980); 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 126, p. 695 (1970). See also Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 195 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla.App. 1967); R.L. Sanders Roofing Co. v. Miller, 153 Ga.App. 225, 264 S.E. 2d 731, 732 (1980); Cong.News at 2508 (noting state law antecedents of § 2415). Once the date of the breach has been determined, however, the additional inquiry requ…
Authorities Cited
- Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth., 153 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1963)