Brock v. Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1DissentBerger, J.
I disagree with the majority view that section 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes, bars recovery in this case. In. my view, the clear and unambiguous language of section 95.11(3)(c) precludes an unlicensed contractor from invoking the benefit of. the limitations period set forth in that section. Accordingly, I dissent.
Section 95.11(3)(c) provides a four year statute of limitations period for:
An action founded on,the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property, with the time running from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Price v. ForrestSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Mendenhall v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2010
- Moonlit Waters Apartments, Inc. v. CauleySupreme Court of Florida · 1996
- Velez v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY POLICE DEPT.Supreme Court of Florida · 2006
- Bergh v. StephensDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.