MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

A statute of limitations prohibits a claimant from asserting a claim after a certain time period. The statute of limitations varies for different types of claims. The statute of limitations on written contracts is five years, oral contracts is four years, and most business torts is four years. Fla. Stat. § 95.11. The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

Determining when the statute of limitations begins to run can be challenging. Courts typically choose between one of two rules. MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 43 F.4th 1259 (11th Cir. 2022). The first rule is generally referred to as the occurrence rule. Under this rule, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the plaintiff’s rights were violated. SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328 (2017). Accordingly, the limitations period will begin to run “when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs.” New Lenox Indus., Inc. v. Fenton, 510 F. Supp. 2d 893 (M.D. Fla. 2007). The second rule is generally referred to as the discovery rule. Aktiebolag, 580 U.S. 328. The discovery rule mandates that the statute of limitations begins running when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the cause of action. Application of either rule depends on the type of claim asserted. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee, 678 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1996) (holding that a “cause of action on a contract accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run from the time of the breach of contract.”); Jelenc v. Draper, 678 So. 2d 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that in a case involving professional malpractice, the period of limitation begins running “from the time the cause of action is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence”).  

Imposing the statute of limitations is not always simple because its application can be delayed if there is an ongoing violation giving rise to the cause of action. XP Glob., Inc. v. AVM, L.P., 2016 WL 4987618 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2016) (“Under the continuing breach doctrine, a cause of action for breach of a contract does not begin to accrue upon the initial breach; rather, on contracts providing serial performance by the parties, accrual of a breach of contract cause of action commences upon the occurrence of the last breach or upon termination of the contract.”). In City of Quincy v. Womack, 60 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011), the plaintiff and defendant entered a contract requiring the city to maintain a dam. The city did not maintain the dam for a long time and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the city when he realized the city failed to maintain the dam. The city asserted a statute of limitations defense because the plaintiff failed to file his claim within five years of the date when the initial breach occurred. However, the court rejected the city’s defense because its obligation to maintain the dam was continuous. City of Quincy, 60 So. 3d 1076 (The “City ignores the continuing nature of its obligations under the contract, and that its ongoing nonperformance constituted a continuing breach while the contract remained in effect.”). As a result, the plaintiff’s “cause of action was not limited to the City’s initial breach, and the… statute of limitations had not expired when the appellee filed his lawsuit which encompassed the City’s continuing breach.”

 The Miami business litigation lawyers of the Mavrick Law Firm also represent clients in Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. This article does not serve as a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation.