Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Waters v. Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.
Citations: 500 So. 2d 224; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2458; 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10784Docket: No. BH-223
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 23, 1986; Florida; State Appellate Court
Franklin Eugene Waters appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint against Nu-Car Carriers, Inc. The appeal raises three key points: 1) that his amended complaint adequately claims negligent misrepresentation; 2) that Florida law recognizes fraudulent misrepresentation; and 3) that his complaint sufficiently alleges a breach of contract under section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court reverses the dismissal based on the third point. The facts reveal that on December 8, 1980, ITT Rayonier, Inc. conducted a controlled burn that created hazardous smoke on I-95, leading to a collision involving Waters' truck, resulting in fatalities. Waters was suspended for allegedly speeding and was later discharged after an expert's erroneous conclusion supported the speeding claim. Following his discharge, Waters filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement, which stipulated that he could only be terminated after a full investigation for a major chargeable accident. The arbitration panel upheld his termination. Waters' suit against Nu-Car included claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of the collective bargaining agreement related to his discharge. The trial court dismissed the tort claims due to insufficient allegations and because they were preempted by federal law. The court emphasized that any claim requiring interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement falls under section 301 of the NLRA, necessitating federal jurisdiction, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the tort claims but acknowledged the proper avenue for Waters' claims lies within the framework of the collective bargaining agreement. Counts 1 and 2 of the appellant’s complaint were dismissed due to insufficient basis, specifically the absence of a “full investigation.” Count 3, alleging a breach of contract under section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, is subject to federal law, which stipulates a six-month statute of limitations for employee suits against employers regarding collective bargaining agreements, as established in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck and Delcostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The appellant filed his claim over three years post-incident but contends that dismissal on these grounds was premature. The court acknowledges ongoing factual disputes about the statute of limitations' applicability, particularly regarding when the limitations period commenced—either at the time of discharge or upon discovery of the potential claim. Additionally, the trial court lacked the complete collective bargaining agreement, which is essential to understand the grievance procedure and the validity of the appellant's claims regarding perjured testimony in grievance decisions. Consequently, the court affirms the dismissal of the first two counts, reverses the dismissal of count 3, and remands the case for further proceedings.