YUSUF MOHAMAD EXCAV. INC. v. Ringhaver Equip. Co.

• Citation: 793 So.2d 1127
• Decision Date: 07 September 2001
• Docket Number: No. 5D00-1729.,5D00-1729.
• Parties: YUSUF MOHAMAD EXCAVATION, INC., Appellant, v. RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT, CO., Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

793 So.2d 1127

YUSUF MOHAMAD EXCAVATION, INC., Appellant, v. RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT, CO., Appellee.

No. 5D00-1729.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

September 7, 2001.

Terry L. McCollough of Terry L. McCollough, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

James M. Shuler and Ronald H. Trybus of Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Yusuf Mohamad Excavation, Inc. (Excavation) appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Ringhaver Equipment (Ringhaver), claiming that the trial court erred in concluding that all of Excavation's claims were barred by Florida's statute of limitations because the delayed discovery doctrine¹ is not applicable to actions for tortious interference with business relationships, defamation, or unfair and deceptive trade practices. We affirm.

In May 1999, Excavation filed suit against Ringhaver based upon conduct which occurred in 1990. Specifically, in count I of its complaint, Excavation averred that Ringhaver had tortiously interfered with its business relationship with Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (Caterpillar) by advising Caterpillar that Excavation was in financial straits thereby causing Caterpillar to repossess equipment from, and to terminate a lease agreement with, Excavation. In count II, Excavation averred that Ringhaver's defamatory statements to Caterpillar concerning Excavation's financial status caused its business to fail. In count III of the complaint, Excavation averred that Ringhaver's actions constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of section 501.201 of the Florida Statutes (1989). Upon motion filed by Ringhaver, the trial court dismissed Excavation's complaint with prejudice based upon the applicable statute of limitations.

While acknowledging that the trial court was correct in dismissing its defamation claim, see Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth, Romano, Erikson & Kupfer, P.A. v. Flanagan, 629 So.2d 113 (Fla.1993),

Excavation contends that the court erred in refusing to apply the delayed discovery doctrine to its tortious interference with business relationship, and unfair and deceptive trade practice claims. We disagree.

Section 95.11(3) of the Florida Statutes (1989) provides a four year statute of limitations for tortious interference, and for unfair and deceptive trade practice claims. See § 95.11(3)(f); (o), Fla. Stat. (1989). Thus, absent application of the delayed discovery doctrine, Excavation's causes of action against Ringhaver expired in 1994. In considering Excavation's request that this court extend the application of the delayed discovery doctrine to claims for tortious interference, and unfair and deceptive trade practice, we first recognize that no Florida appellate court has yet issued an opinion discussing this issue. We find significant however the fact that Chapter 95 of the Florida Statutes (1989) does not expressly provide for the application of the delayed discovery doctrine to either of these causes of action.

In Federal Ins. Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Ctr., Inc., 707 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1998), under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court held that the delayed discovery doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff's cause of action based on an alleged breach of a construction contract since the applicable statute of limitations contained no deferral in the accrual of a cause of action based upon latent undiscovered defects. See § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). In so ruling the Court applied the expressio uninus est exclusio alterius principle of statutory construction to reach the conclusion that the absence of express statutory language providing for the application of the delayed discovery doctrine was clear evidence that the legislature did not intend for the doctrine to apply. The Court further noted that to decide otherwise would require the Court to write...