Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/DIST. SCH. BD. OF DESOTO CTY. v. Safeco Ins. Co.

DIST. SCH. BD. OF DESOTO CTY. v. Safeco Ins. Co.

434 So. 2d 38, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19811
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 8, 1983
Docket82-2644
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 434 So. 2d 38 (DIST. SCH. BD. OF DESOTO CTY. v. Safeco Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DIST. SCH. BD. OF DESOTO CTY. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 434 So. 2d 38, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19811 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

434 So.2d 38 (1983)

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF DESOTO COUNTY, Appellant,
v.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 82-2644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1983.

*39 Wayne C. Hall of Dickenson, O'Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, P.A., Venice, for appellant.

Ronald W. Sikes of Ronald W. Sikes, P.A., Titusville, and Justin R. Lumley of Stolba, Lumley & Dillinger, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See City of Miami Beach v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 425 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Florida Board of Regents v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 416 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Under the natural meaning of "performance of the labor" in section 255.05(2), Florida Statutes (1973), a certificate of substantial completion and the acceptance of a constructed building by the owner begins the one-year statute of limitations period provided by section 255.05(2) for actions against the surety on the bond. If the legislature had intended that the existence of latent defects in the building would toll the beginning of that naturally-understood statute of limitations period as to actions against the surety, we must presume that the legislature would have said so as it did in section 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), relating to actions on the design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Fort Pierce v. Shannon R. Ginn Construction Co.
705 So. 2d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Federal Ins. Co. v. Exel of Orlando, Inc.
685 So. 2d 896 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co.
682 So. 2d 1130 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
SOUTHWEST FLA. RETIREMENT CTR., INC. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
682 So. 2d 1130 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Baldwin Carpet Linoleum & Carpet, Inc. v. Builders, Inc.
523 N.W.2d 33 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1994)
BOARD OF CTY. COMMR. v. Aetna Cas.
604 So. 2d 850 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Northwestern, Inc. v. Ward Land Clearing & Drainage, Inc.
500 So. 2d 615 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
SCHOOL BD. OF VOLUSIA v. Fidelity Co. of Md.
468 So. 2d 431 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
434 So. 2d 38, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dist-sch-bd-of-desoto-cty-v-safeco-ins-co-fladistctapp-1983.