This statute says that suits by and against FDOT for breach of contract must be commenced within 820 days of FDOT's final acceptance of the project. Case law clearly says that this is a statute of limitations. Has anyone litigated this statute, especially as a defense to a claim by FDOT against a contractor? I'm particularly interested in: (1) the interplay (if any) between this statute and s. 95.11(3)(c); and, (2) how a warranty period extending beyond 820 days would impact the limitations analysis. There is no case law on either topic. Please reply directly to me if you have experience with this statute so that we can avoid filling up everyone else's inbox. Thanks in advance. Mark T. Snelson, Esq. Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A. 505 Maitland Ave., Suite 1000 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 (407) 425-0234 (407) 425-0260 (fax) msnelson@wfmblaw.com<mailto:msnelson@wfmblaw.com> www.wfmblaw.com<http://www.wfmblaw.com/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission. IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer should seek advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.

Can I be included on the response, if any. I would also like to know the answer On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Mark Snelson <msnelson@wfmblaw.com> wrote: > This statute says that suits by and against FDOT for breach of contract > must be commenced within 820 days of FDOT’s final acceptance of the > project. Case law clearly says that this is a statute of limitations. Has > anyone litigated this statute, especially as a defense to a claim by FDOT > against a contractor? I’m particularly interested in: (1) the interplay > (if any) between this statute and s. 95.11(3)(c); and, (2) how a warranty > period extending beyond 820 days would impact the limitations analysis. > There is no case law on either topic. > > > > Please reply directly to me if you have experience with this statute so > that we can avoid filling up everyone else’s inbox. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Mark T. Snelson, Esq. > Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar > > Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A. > > 505 Maitland Ave., Suite 1000 > > Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 > > (407) 425-0234 > > (407) 425-0260 (fax) > > msnelson@wfmblaw.com > > www.wfmblaw.com > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments > accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the > sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information > is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of > this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of > this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in > error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy > all copies of the transmission. > > IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted U.S. > Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless > otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this > communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this > firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax > penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless > otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this > communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this > firm for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership > or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such > taxpayer should seek advice on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances from > an independent tax advisor. > > > > Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or > other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" > and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other > e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not > received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that > reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail > communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely > manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which > are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail. > > > > _______________________________________________ > CLC-Discussion mailing list > CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > -- Jessica T. Sebag, Esq. This e-mail transmission and any accompanying documents may contain confidential information, which is legally protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. The information contained in or accompanying this message is intended only for the use of the person(s) to whom addressed; and any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on or regarding this information is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the sender. E-mail sent via the Internet can easily be altered or manipulated by third persons. For this reason, we do not assume any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and destroy this e-mail and any accompanying documents. Disclaimer regarding Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ("UETA") (Florida Statutes Section 668.50): If this communication concerns negotiation of a contract or agreement, UETA does not apply to this communication; contract formation in this matter shall occur only with manually-affixed original signatures on original documents. Thank you for your cooperation. 0~0 ^^^^^^^^^^^\_____ \___/ Go Gators!