Access Insurance Planners, Inc. v. Gee
175 So. 3d 921
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Gee (employee/agent) had an oral agreement with Access (employer) beginning July 1, 2004: Access would pay Gee a percentage of gross commissions (50% L&H, 25% P&C) when insurers paid initial and renewal commissions to Access.
- Gee discovered unpaid 2005 commissions in Sept. 2007, communicated with Access about discrepancies beginning Oct. 2009, obtained additional commission data by Jan. 8, 2010, and was terminated in Sept. 2010.
- Gee sued Access on Jan. 11, 2011 for breach of contract seeking unpaid commissions; Access pleaded statute of limitations and asserted counterclaims.
- The trial court ruled for Gee and entered judgment for $100,038.28 (including renewal commissions and prejudgment interest) without temporally parsing which commissions were timely.
- On appeal the central question was whether the commission contract was indivisible (single breach accrual) or divisible (separate accruals for each commission/payment) for statute-of-limitations purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract is divisible for statute-of-limitations accrual | Gee: each commission is a separate obligation; accrual occurs when Access fails to pay each commission or when Access stopped paying | Access: single contract; accrual occurred at earliest breach (argues 2005/2006/2005–2006 period) so claims are time-barred | Contract is divisible; statute of limitations runs from each discrete breach (each time Access received a commission and failed to pay) |
| Whether delayed discovery tolls accrual on breach-of-contract claims | Gee: cause of action did not accrue until she discovered the true gross commissions / concealment | Access: accrual began at initial breach and delayed discovery doctrine does not apply to breach of contract | Delayed discovery doctrine does not apply to breach of contract here; but divisibility means many claims still timely |
| Temporal scope of recoverable commissions given 4-year statute | Gee: seeks recovery for all unpaid commissions (trial court awarded all) | Access: damages should be limited to commissions received within the limitations period before suit | Only commissions received by Access after Jan. 11, 2007 are recoverable; earlier claims are barred |
| Whether other errors (e.g., attorneys’ fees) require reversal | Gee: trial court award was proper | Access: raised other issues on appeal | No reversible error on other issues; remand limited to recalculating damages consistent with divisibility ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Beltran v. Vincent P. Miraglia, M.D., P.A., 125 So.3d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (statute-of-limitations accrual is reviewed de novo)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee, 678 So.2d 818 (Fla. 1996) (contract cause of action accrues at time of breach)
- Hannett v. Bryan, 640 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (divisible contract — separate payments trigger separate accruals)
- Isaacs v. Deutsch, 80 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1955) (installment-payment contract accrual principles)
- Med. Jet, S.A. v. Signature Flight Support-Palm Beach, Inc., 941 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (declining to expand delayed discovery to breach-of-contract claims)
- Fed. Ins. Co. v. Sw. Fla. Ret. Ctr., Inc., 707 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1998) (Florida Supreme Court refusing to apply delayed discovery to breach of contract)