Neff v. General Development Corp., 77-1226
| Decision Date | 15 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1226,77-1226 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 1275 |
| Parties | Albert K. NEFF, d/b/a Neff Hardware, Inc., Individually and on behalf of Grange Mutual Casualty Company, a Foreign Corporation, Appellant, v. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Drage Industries, the Mackle Company, and Port Charlotte Electric, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wade H. Parsons, Fort Myers, for appellant.
Patrick J. Murphy, of Crabtree, Butler, Syprett & Meshad, Sarasota, for appellee Drage Industries.
This is an appeal of a final judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of appellee/defendant, Drage Industries, in an action filed on April 28, 1977 by appellant/plaintiff, Albert K. Neff, d/b/a Neff Hardware, Inc. Appellant alleged that as a result of a fire on December 18, 1973 in the shopping center complex in which he was a tenant, merchandise and equipment in his hardware store suffered extensive damage. The complaint stated that in 1969 Drage Industries had negligently performed certain electrical work in the south meter room during the remodeling of the shopping center and that this negligence was a direct cause of the fire. The pertinent portions of the complaint are as follows:
17. The Defendant, DRAGE INDUSTRIES, was an electrical contractor that did electrical work on the south meter room in 1969 during the remodeling of the Port Charlotte Shopping Plaza, for the Defendant, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
18. That the Defendant, DRAGE INDUSTRIES, was negligent in failing to correct or report the defects in the south meter room described above when such defects should have been apparent to said Defendant, and in failing to use the proper wiring when modifying the system during the remodeling project.
19. That the negligence of the Defendant, DRAGE INDUSTRIES, was a direct cause of the above described fire and was a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.
In granting the motion on the pleadings the trial court found that the statute of limitations, Section 95.11(3), Florida Statutes, 1 barred appellant's cause of action and implied that the clock started running in 1969 when appellee performed the work. Appellant contends that the time did not begin to run until the date the fire occurred and his cause of action arose. We are in accord with appellant's contention.
As this court stated in the recent case of Smith v. Continental Insurance Co., 326 So.2d 189 (Fla.App. 2d DCA 1976):
A statute of limitations starts running when there has been notice of invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiff, i. e., when he has been put on notice of his right of action. This long has been held to be the law in actions based on negligence.
Even though the alleged negligence occurred in 1969 it was not until the personalty was damaged that appellant was made aware of his right to bring this action and that his cause of action arose. The complaint was filed within the time period applicable to any action for injury to personal property under the applicable statute, Section 95.11(3)(h), Florida Statutes (1975).
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller v. Reed
...of his or her legal rights. Lund v. Cook, 354 So.2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1978); Neff v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 354 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA1978), citing Smith v. Continental Ins. Co., 326 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA1976). See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane, 565 S......
-
Board of Trustees of Santa Fe Community College v. Caudill Rowlett Scott, Inc.
...has been put on notice of his right to a cause of action. City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306 (Fla.1954); Neff v. General Development Corporation, 354 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Lund v. Cook, 354 So.2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. den., 360 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1978); Smith v. Continental Ins......
-
Homemakers, Inc. v. Gonzales
...Inc. v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, Inc., 364 So.2d 107 (1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 348 (Fla.1979); Neff v. General Development Corp., 354 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Patterson v. Sodders, 167 So.2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Martz v. Riskamm, 144 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). In fa......
-
Bove v. PBW Stock Exchange, Inc.
...and it begins to run at the time of the conversion, except where the latter is fraudulently concealed. Neff v. General Development Corp., 354 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Appellee purportedly "bought" the exchange seat in 1975. This suit, filed in 1976, was well within the statute of limi......