Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Griffith Oil Co., 256 A.D.2d 1199, 1200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Maxcess stresses that this Court should refuse to apply this axiom of New York law because Florida law does not permit contracting parties to shorten the limitations period. See Fla. Stat. § 95.03 (“Any provision in a contract fixing the 5 period of time within which an action arising out of the contract may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of limita...

...The salient facts necessary to our determination of the legal questions presented to this court for decision are, however, stated in the questions as certified to this court by the Court of Appeals. The first question certified reads as follows: "(1) Are the provisions of Section 95.03 and 95.11 (3) Florida Statutes, making void any provisions of an insurance contract requiring suit on the contract to be filed in a period shorter than five years applicable to a personal property, world-wide, all-risks, floater insuran...

...ter discovery of the loss; the policy provided that any suit under the contract must be filed within twelve months from the discovery of the loss; the twelve-month limitation clause of the contract is valid and enforceable in the State of Illinois?" Section 95.03, supra, was enacted in 1913 as §§ 1 and 2 of Ch....

..." (Emphasis added.) And § 95.11(3), supra, specified a five-year limitation period for actions on written contracts not under seal, the type of contract with which we are here concerned. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its opinion and judgment, supra, 265 F.2d 522, did not decide the question of whether § 95.03 was, in fact, intended to apply to a contract of insurance issued in another state to a resident of such state, since it was of the opinion that, even if applicable, a violation of the due process clause of the federal constitution would res...

...Justice Douglas, argued strongly that all questions of law in the case — constitutional and nonconstitutional *738 — could properly and should be decided without further delay by the High Court; and he proceeded to do so, advancing cogent reasons in support of the applicability of § 95.03 to the subject contract and its constitutionality when so applied. We are not here concerned, of course, with the constitutionality vel non of § 95.03 as applied to so-called foreign contracts, including the subject contract, since this question is not before us....

...l, but also grave doubts upon that score," Burr v. Florida East Coast R.R. Co., 1919, 77 Fla. 259, 81 So. 464. Assuming arguendo that we are as sanguine as appellant insurance company that "grave doubts" should be held to exist as to the validity of § 95.03 as applied to the subject contract, we must conclude, nevertheless, that it is not "fairly possible" to construe the statute as applicable solely to contracts made and executed in Florida, as here contended by appellant....

...ccurred in New York, the mere fact that the insured moved and became a resident of Florida within twelve months after the loss did not give Florida sufficient contact with the transaction and the parties to justify the application of Florida Statute § 95.03, F.S.A., voiding any contractual provision fixing the time in which suits may be instituted at a period less than that provided by the Statute of Limitations....

...The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the contractually based counts on the ground of expiration of the two-year period. On the fraud count, the court entered summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue of fact on the fraud allegations. Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1975), provides as follows: Any provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action arising out of the contract may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations is void....

...he computer to Suntogs bears a reasonable relation to that state. 433 So.2d at 584. Nevertheless the court declined to apply the chosen Michigan law on the question of the contractually agreed limitation period. The court reversed on the ground that section 95.03, set forth above, expresses a strong public policy of the State of Florida and as such prevails over the choice-of-law concept of "party autonomy." The court reasoned that the *1168 statute providing that a contractual provision shorten...

...These factors, which reflected the reasons why we found there was not a strong public policy against allowing two parties to an interstate commercial loan transaction to agree to apply another state's usury laws, are applicable to this case. First, we find the policy enunciated by section 95.03 to be riddled with exceptions....

..., but merely allow the defendant to set up an affirmative defense. In all these respects the public policy concerning the appropriate statutory period of limitations shares the same attributes as the public policy concerning usury laws. Furthermore, section 95.03 must be read in pari materia with other laws which suggest that parties to an agreement may contract to shorten the period of time for filing a suit....

...The decision under review is quashed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and SHAW, JJ., concur. McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., dissent. NOTES [*] Prior to its amendment by chapter 74-382, section 2, Laws of Florida, section 95.03 provided as follows: All provisions and stipulations contained in any contract whatever entered into after May 26, 1913 fixing the period of time in which suits may be instituted under any such contract, or upon any matter growing out o...

...Section 95.011 provides that for purposes of chapter 95, the term “action” refers to a “civil action or proceeding” and then states that an action shall be barred unless it is begun within the time prescribed in chapter 95 or prescribed elsewhere in the statutes. The next statutory provision, section 95.03, uses the term “action” and provides as follows: 95.03. Contracts shortening time. — • Any provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action arising out of the contract may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations is void. § 95.03, Fla. Stat. (2005). If this Court interpreted the term “proceeding” to exclude arbitration, a person could easily avoid the protection of section 95.03 by agreeing to pursue claims in arbitration because arbitration would not be considered to be an “action” for purposes of chapter 95. In other words, an arbitration agreement could circumvent section 95.03 and actually shorten the applicable statute of limitations....

...ContractPoint Fla. Parks, LLC, 986 So.2d 1260, 1266-67 (Fla.2008). Prior to 1974, the Legislature had not yet enacted section 95.011, which sets forth the applicability of chapter 95. At that time, the protections against shortening time periods under section 95.03 were limited to apply only to “suits,” a more narrow term that involves only court proceedings....

...es against another in a court of law”). However, in 1974, the Legislature created section 95.011, which explicitly provided that the provisions of chapter 95 extend to any “civil action or proceeding.” At the same time, the Legislature amended section 95.03 to its current form, which voids any provision in a contract that attempts to shorten the statute of limitations....

...g out of any claimed breach of the Agreements or obligations under the Agreements may be brought by either party more than two (2) years after the cause of action has accrued. Under Florida law, the above contract provision would be rendered void by Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1975), declaring: Any provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action arising out of the contract may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations is void....

...Our law recognizes that party autonomy will not be honored when the law of the state selected conflicts with the strong public policy of Florida. [3] See Continental Mortgage Investors v. Sailboat Key, Inc., supra (no such strong public policy inheres in Florida's usury laws). Section 95.03 formerly read as follows: All provisions and stipulations contained in any contract whatever entered into after May 26, 1913 fixing the period of time in which suits may be instituted under any such contract, or upon any matter growing...

...eign or domestic — when Florida's contact therewith, existing at the time of its execution or occurring thereafter, is sufficient to give a court of this state jurisdiction of a suit thereon." 133 So.2d at 738 (emphasis supplied). In 1974, however, Section 95.03 was amended, Ch....

...The defendants argue that the new version of the statute (quoted earlier in this opinion) constitutes a renunciation by the legislature of the public policy against contractual provisions reducing statutory limitations periods. We do not divine such a legislative intent. Under Section 95.03, as amended, a contractual reduction of the statutory limitations period is still void....

...e it will carry you," Story v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., in Orlando, 115 Fla. 436, *585 156 So. 101, 103 (1934); see also Russell v. Martin, 88 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1956), we are nonetheless confident that with the plain legislative expression in Section 95.03, our mount is in this instance tame and our course clear....

...e resolved in favor of insured); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burak, 373 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(same). Finally, the clause has no effect on the applicable statute of limitations for bringing suit on the policy and therefore is not barred by section 95.03, Florida Statutes (2001)("Any provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action arising out of the contract may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations is void.")....

...limit the time within which suit could be brought would be less than the applicable Florida Statute of Limitations. At the time plaintiffs' action accrued, the time within which suit could have been brought on a contract under seal was twenty years. Section 95.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: "All provisions and stipulations contained in any contract whatever entered into after May 26, 1913 fixing the period of time in which suits may be instituted under any such contract, or upon any mat...

...145, which held that a plaintiff should not prevail in a suit upon an insurance contract containing a similar twelve month provision regarding suit, entered into in North Carolina on property in North Carolina, and where the damage occurred in North Carolina. Quarty contends that F.S. § 95.03, F.S.A., making void any provisions of a contract fixing the time in which suits may be instituted under the contract at a period of time less than that provided by the statute of limitations of this State, is applicable to the subject contract....

...*183 In an opinion rendered by our Supreme Court in Sun Insurance Office, Limited v. Clay, Fla. 1961, 133 So.2d 735, on a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at the direction of the United States Supreme Court, it was held that F.S. § 95.03, F.S.A., applies to any contract whatever — foreign or domestic — when Florida's contact therewith, existing at the time of its execution or occurring thereafter, is sufficient to give a Court of this State jurisdiction of a suit thereon....

...filed approximately eighteen months after the date of the injury. Both parties agree that although this is a common law action in a state court, it is governed by general maritime law. Under these circumstances, the limitation provisions provided by Section 95.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., do not apply....

...toll the limitations period and cannot be deducted from the total lapsed time in determining whether the subsequent complaint was timely filed. Hamilton v. Largo Paint & Decorating, Inc., 335 So.2d 623 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Moreover, the provisions of Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1971), which prohibit the contractual shortening of statutory limitation periods, have no effect upon Rule 120 because the regulation of shipments of goods in interstate commerce has been preempted by federal authority....

...NCNB's alleged failure to comply with certain conditions precedent to a suit on the bond; however, Aetna apparently concedes on appeal that, with regard to the bringing of suit, NCNB actually had more than twenty-four months to file, by operation of section 95.03, Florida Statutes, and the self-correcting provision of section 4 of the bond....

...action can be brought to a period less than the time provided in the applicable statute of limitations. W.F. Thompson Constr. Co. v. Southeastern Palm Beach Hosp. Dist., 174 So.2d 410, 413-414 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 180 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1965). Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1989), provides: Contracts shortening time....

...of Volusia County v. Fidelity Co. of Maryland, 468 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Thus, the argument that the bond's limitation period validly expands coverage over that provided by section 713.23 is illogical when considered in conjunction with section 95.03 which makes that provision void....

...tutory provision containing the "arising out of" language. See Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1093 (D. Minn. 2007) ("The Court therefore finds that a non-contract claim 'aris[es] out of [a] contract' for purposes of § 95.03 when that non-contract claim could only arise if the parties have entered into a contract." (alteration in original))....

...1st DCA 1978), and American Home Assurance Co. v. Larkin General Hospital, Ltd., 571 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), do not include a reference to the bond incorporating the construction contract by reference, only through such incorporation could there be a claim for delay damages. [6] § 95.03, Fla....

...rties falls within the above-emphasized provision of the statute and the trial judge correctly ruled that the one year limitation of action within the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act precluded appellant's counterclaim, notwithstanding the provisions of § 95.03, Fla....

...Accordingly, the order and final judgment appealed and cross-appealed from are hereby affirmed. Affirmed. NOTES [1] It appears from the pleadings and record that appellant was the assignee of one of the parties to the bill and, therefore, bound by its terms. [2] 46 U.S.C.A. § 1303(6). [3] § 95.03, Fla....

...fuse to give effect to such provisions. See Maxcess, Inc. v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 433 F.3d 1337, 1340-41 (11th Cir.2005) (noting that in New York, courts recognize a contractual limitations period shorter than the statutory provision, but in Florida, Section 95.03, Florida Statutes, provides that any such contractual provision is void)....

could there be a claim for delay damages. . § 95.03, Fla. Stat.

...The applicable law is significant here. If Nevada law applies, the six-month limitation period placed in these Contracts may be valid, while if Florida law applies, it is undisputed that the parties’ contractual reduction of the limitations period is invalid. § 95.03, Fla....

...iage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 1300 et seq., by reason of which the rights of the parties were controlled by maritime law. Under § 95.11(5) (c) Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the limitation period for actions for damage to goods is three years. Under § 95.03 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., contractual provisions shortening statutory limitation periods are against public policy and void....

...nless brought within three years from the expiration of the time which proof of loss is required by the Policy.” The question then is: May this group insurance policy prescribe a period shorter than that allowed by the general limitations statute? Section 95.03, Florida Statutes (1975), provides as follows: “95.03 Contracts shortening time....

...A document referenced in a complaint that is central to a plaintiff’s claim is considered part of the complaint for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, even if such document is not physically attached to the complaint. Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 , 1276 (11th Cir.2005). . Fla. Stat. § 95.03 provides that "[a]ny provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action arising out of the contract may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations is void.” ....

...mit the time within which suit could be brought would be less than the applicable Florida Statute of Limitations. At the time plaintiffs’ action accrued, the time within which suit could have been brought on a contract under seal was twenty years. Section 95.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: “All provisions and stipulations contained in any contract whatever entered into after May 26, 1913 fixing the period of time in which suits may be instituted under any such contract, or upon any m...