Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the widow of an asbestos-exposed worker pursued legal action against several corporations, claiming wrongful death due to asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard between 1942 and 1945. The worker, diagnosed with asbestosis and mesothelioma in 1977, succumbed the following year. Initially, the trial court ruled the lawsuit was barred by New York's statute of limitations. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that Florida's borrowing statute applies only if the cause of action arose outside of Florida. The court clarified that in Florida, the terms 'arise' and 'accrue' are used interchangeably, meaning a tort action arises when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury. This reversal allows the case to proceed under Florida law, which recognizes the discovery rule for when a statute of limitations begins. The decision experienced en banc review due to its departure from prior case law, resulting in a 4-4 tie, thereby affirming the panel's ruling. A dissenting opinion argued against rehearing en banc and criticized the panel's authority to reinterpret existing precedents, insisting on the adherence to previously established legal principles. The case has been certified for further consideration by the Florida Supreme Court, focusing on whether actions barred in the originating jurisdiction can be maintained in Florida under its discovery rule.
Legal Issues Addressed
Accrual of Tort Causes of Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In Florida, a tort cause of action arises when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the injury, and not at the time of exposure to a harmful substance.
Reasoning: The accrual of a cause of action is linked to the aggrieved party's discovery or duty to discover the act violating their rights. Specifically, a tort cause of action arises when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the injury.
Application of Florida's Borrowing Statutesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court clarified that Florida's borrowing statute applies only if the cause of action arose in another jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that Florida's borrowing statute (Section 95.10) applies only if the cause of action arose in another jurisdiction.
Definition of 'Arise' and 'Accrue' under Florida Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that Florida law does not distinguish between when a cause of action 'arises' and when it 'accrues,' treating them as interchangeable terms.
Reasoning: The court rejected the defendants' argument that the determination of where a cause of action arises should be distinguished from when it accrues, noting that Florida case law does not make such a distinction and uses the terms 'arise' and 'accrue' interchangeably.
Panel Authority on Overruling Precedentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A three-judge panel does not have the authority to overrule a prior decision of another panel on the same legal point unless it is recommended for an en banc hearing or certified to a higher court.
Reasoning: The discussion raises a question regarding whether one three-judge panel can overrule a prior decision of another panel on the same legal point. It asserts that panels should not operate as independent courts but maintain responsibility to the district court as a whole.
Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case emphasizes the importance of the discovery rule in determining when the statute of limitations begins, which is when the injured party suffers damage from the alleged tortious acts.
Reasoning: In Penthouse North Association, Inc. v. Lombardi, the Supreme Court clarified that a statute of limitations does not start until a cause of action accrues, which occurs when the injured party suffers damage from the alleged tortious acts.