187 So. 3d 294
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Lawrence and Laura Brock sued Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc. after water intrusion allegedly caused by defective window installation.
- Suit was filed more than four years but less than five years after the Brocks discovered the latent defect.
- Garner (the installer) raised a statute-of-limitations defense at summary judgment.
- Garner conceded it lacked a contractor license but disputed that licensure affected its ability to invoke the limitations defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Garner; the appellate majority affirmed, the dissent would have applied the five-year contract limitations period instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brocks) | Defendant's Argument (Garner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies: 4-year for construction of an improvement (§95.11(3)(c)) or general 5-year written-contract period (§95.11(2)(b))? | The 4-year construction statute should not apply because Garner was unlicensed; therefore the 5-year written-contract period governs. | The 4-year statute governs because the claim is founded on construction of an improvement; the statute’s reference to a “licensed contractor” only affects triggering events, not applicability. | Majority: 4-year construction statute applies; controls over the 5-year contract statute. |
| Does the statute’s reference to “licensed contractor” exclude unlicensed contractors from the 4-year period? | Yes — the statute’s plain text limits the 4-year period to actions involving licensed contractors. | No — the “licensed contractor” phrase appears in the triggering-event clause; applicability depends on the nature of the contract, not the contractor’s licensure, and here the statute was triggered by discovery of a latent defect. | Majority: The licensure language does not bar an unlicensed contractor from invoking §95.11(3)(c) where the latent-defect discovery rule controls. |
| Can an unlicensed contractor invoke a statute-of-limitations defense given §489.128 (which bars enforcement of contracts by unlicensed contractors)? | Earth Trades/§489.128 should prevent Garner from asserting limitations-based defenses because it was unlicensed. | §489.128 bars enforcing a contract but does not strip an unlicensed contractor of procedural or statutory defenses to an owner’s suit. | Majority: §489.128 and Earth Trades do not preclude an unlicensed contractor from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense. |
| If the 4-year statute is inapplicable, was summary judgment properly decided under the 5-year period? | If 4-year inapplicable, 5-year statute would control and Garner did not timely move under it. | N/A (Garner argued 4-year applies) | Dissent: 4-year should not apply to unlicensed contractor; lower court erred to grant summary judgment on that basis. Majority did not reach procedural adequacy under 5-year statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubin v. Dow Corning Corp., 478 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA) (specific statute for construction improvements controls over general written-contract statute)
- Earth Trades, Inc. v. T&G Corp., 108 So.3d 580 (Fla. 2013) (unlicensed-contractor enforcement issues under §489.128)
- Wakulla County v. Davis, 395 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1981) (avoidance of absurd or unreasonable statutory constructions)