Vargas v. City of Fort Myers
137 So. 3d 1031
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Vargas injured March 3, 2005 in a Fort Myers police car collision.
- May 13, 2005 notice letter to Fort Myers requested insurance information and disclosed representation.
- March 9, 2007 Vargas provided a detailed letter describing the accident, injuries, medical costs, and a demand for full policy limits.
- November 17, 2008 Vargas asserted compliance with 768.28(6)(a); Fort Myers acknowledged on November 20, 2008 that the three-year notice period had expired.
- December 22, 2008 Vargas filed a negligence complaint; amended March 17, 2010 attached the March 9, 2007 letter; summary judgment granted March 23, 2012.
- Court reversed and remanded, finding notice and timely filing satisfied the statutory requirements and tolling issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the notice under 768.28(6)(a) adequate? | Vargas: March 9, 2007 letter adequately described the claim. | Fort Myers: notice insufficient under statute. | Notice satisfied; adequate description for investigation. |
| Was the action timely under the statute of limitations? | Vargas filed within four years of the accident; amendments relate back. | Fort Myers: statute of limitations expired. | Not expired; timely within four-year period. |
| Do amended complaints relate back to the original pleading? | Relation back doctrine applied liberally; amendments relate to original filing date. | Fort Myers: not clearly addressed here; standard preserved. | Amendments relate back; no time-bar prejudice. |
| Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment as to 768.28 notice and statute of limitations? | Vargas satisfied notice and timely filing; summary judgment inappropriate. | Fort Myers: as to both issues, judgment proper. | Reversed; trial court erred in granting summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aitcheson v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 117 So.3d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (notice must be sufficiently direct to put department on notice)
- LaRiviere v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 889 So.2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (notice must describe occurrence to allow investigation)
- Cunningham v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 782 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (purpose of notice is to provide time to investigate)
- Williams v. Henderson, 687 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (form of notice not strictly defined)
- C.H. v. Whitney, 987 So.2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (relation back liberal application under rule 1.190)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (summary judgment caution in negligence actions)
- Coral v. Garrard Crane Serv., Inc., 62 So.3d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (summary judgment standard)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary judgment standards and issues)