final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa I.
Rodriguez, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 16-3100
Wadsworth Law, LLLP, Orlando J. Romero and Christopher W.
Wadsworth, for appellant.
Ludovici & Ludovici, P.A. and Susan M. Ludovici, for
SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
Property & Casualty Group appeals the trial court's
final order dismissing with prejudice Companion's Amended
Complaint due to the expiration of the statute of limitations
in section 95.11(3)(c), Fla Stat. (2012). We reverse because
the trial court erred in finding that Companion's action
was time-barred and thus erred in dismissing it.
February 8, 2016, Companion filed its subrogation action with
the trial court. In its initial complaint, Companion, as the
insurer for the property allegedly damaged by the
appellee/Built Tops Building Services, Inc., asserted its
subrogation claim against Built Tops. Companion pled in
Paragraph 5 of its complaint that Built Tops performed the
negligent repairs on the insured/subrogor's roof on or
about November 21, 2006. In paragraph 6 of its complaint,
Companion pled that as the result of Built Tops' faulty
repairs, the insured condominium building was damaged by
water that permeated through the insured's roof on
February 9, 2012. Companion paid its insured $31, 937.87 in
proceeds under its insurance policy. On February 8, 2016,
Companion filed its complaint against Built Tops.
24, 2016, Companion filed an amended complaint with the trial
court, as Built Tops did not file a responsive pleading to
the initial complaint. In its amended complaint asserting its
subrogation rights, Companion again contended that Built Tops
performed the negligent repairs on the insured roof on or
about November 21, 2006 and further pled, as a result of the
faulty repairs, that the insured condominium building
suffered a water loss on February 9, 2012.
8, 2016, Built Tops moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Built Tops asserted that the applicable four-year statute of
limitations had run on the filing of Companion's
complaint four years after the date of the negligent repairs
performed by Built Tops and not four years after the date of
the injury, which was the water loss, that triggered
Companion's obligation to issue payment to its insured.
Built Tops argued that Companion's claim was time-barred
and should be dismissed with prejudice.
August 1, 2016, the parties appeared before the trial court
on Built Tops' motion to dismiss. At the hearing,
Companion contended that the matter was a subrogation action
for which the statute of limitations began to run on the date
that the "injury" occurred. Companion asserted that
the subject injury was sustained by the insured (and by way
of subrogation, Companion) on the date of the water loss,
which was February 9, 2012. Therefore, the initial complaint
filed by Companion on February 8, 2016, was timely filed.
Built Tops argued, in response, that the statute of
limitations instead began to run on the exact date of the
negligent repairs as pled by Companion - November 21, 2006 -
although the pleadings were devoid of any allegations that
Companion or its insured had any knowledge of the defect in
the subject roof at that time. The trial court granted Built
Tops' motion to dismiss on the basis that the applicable
statute of limitations had run for the filing of
moved for rehearing/reconsideration. The trial court denied
Companion's motion and dismissed Companion's
appeal, Companion contends that the trial court erred in
deciding that its negligence action was time-barred because
the statute of limitations had run. Companion asserts that
according to section 95.11(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012), the
statute of limitations began to run on February 9, 2012, the
date the water damage occurred, rather than on November 21,
2006, the date when Built Tops performed the negligent
review the trial court's order granting the motion to
dismiss de novo. Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v.
Grove Isle Assoc., LLP, 137 So.3d 1081, 1089 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2014). We agree with Companion that the trial court
improperly dismissed Companion's subrogation action
stemming from a ...