section 768.28(14) four year statute of limitations in Florida

2000See State Dep't of Corrections v. Parker, 553 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (finding that both the wife and the estate were separately injured by the death of the husband; therefore, the wife's action for loss of consortium was distinct from that of the estate and the $100,000 limit was for each claimant); State Dep't of Transp. v. Knowles, 388 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (holding that the limitation of section 768.28(5) does not apply to separate claims by different individuals in the same lawsuit), aff'd, 402 So.2d 1155 (Fla.1981); State Board of Regents v. Yant, 360 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA

1989See generally State of Florida, Department of Transportation v. Knowles, 388 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State of Florida, Board of Regents v. Yant, 360 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (the limitation of section 768.28(5) does not apply to separate claims by different individuals in the same lawsuit).

2017Our decision was recently reversed in Green v. Cottrell, 204 So.3d 22 (Fla. 2016), the supreme court holding that the four-year statute of limitations in section 768.28(14) governs a prisoner action where the prisoner suffers “physical injury due to the negligent or wrongful act or omissions of the employees of a government entity.” Green v. Cottrell, 204 So.3d 22 (Fla. 2016).

2017Our decision was recently reversed in Green v. Cottrell, 204 So.3d 22 (Fla. 2016), the supreme court holding that the four-year statute of limitations in section 768.28(14) governs a prisoner action where the prisoner suffers “physical injury due to the negligent or wrongful act or omissions of the employees of a government entity.” Green v. Cottrell, 204 So.3d 22 (Fla. 2016).

2002See S.A.P., 704 So.2d at 585 .

2002See S.A.P., 704 So.2d at 585 .

2018In Provident, this Court held that the statutory limitation of liability found in section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1989), waiving the State’s sovereign immunity for -2- tort claims, does not apply to a claim for wrongful injunction against a governmental entity that did not post an injunction bond. 796 So. 2d at 488 .

2005Corp. v. City of Treasure Island, 796 So.2d 481, 486 (Fla.2001) (concluding that section 768.28 "applies only when the governmental entity is being sued in tort"; thus, limitations of section 768.28 did not apply to restrict award of damages against governmental entity for the erroneous issuance of a temporary injunction).

2000See State Dep't of Corrections v. Parker, 553 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (finding that both the wife and the estate were separately injured by the death of the husband; therefore, the wife's action for loss of consortium was distinct from that of the estate and the $100,000 limit was for each claimant); State Dep't of Transp. v. Knowles, 388 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (holding that the limitation of section 768.28(5) does not apply to separate claims by different individuals in the same lawsuit), aff'd, 402 So.2d 1155 (Fla.1981); State Board of Regents v. Yant, 360 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA

1989See generally State of Florida, Department of Transportation v. Knowles, 388 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State of Florida, Board of Regents v. Yant, 360 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (the limitation of section 768.28(5) does not apply to separate claims by different individuals in the same lawsuit).

2024Our standard of review for statutory interpretation is de novo, but “[w]e are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.” Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999).

2016See Green, 172 So. 3d at 1010 .

2016See Green, 172 So.3d at 1010 .

2015In Horn v. State, Department of Transportation, 665 So.2d 1122, 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), we interpreted Beard as holding that the statute of limitations in section 768.28 “was intended to apply to all actions permitted by the limited waiver of immunity, notwithstanding the fact that a different statute of limitations might apply had the action been brought against a private defendant.” As previously noted, section 95.11(5)(g) is not a statute of a general nature applying to a particular cause of action that might be brought against a private entity.

2013See Gay v. Singletary, 700 So.2d 1220, 1221 (Fla.1997) (explaining that this Latin maxim instructs that "when a law expressly describes the particular situation in which something should apply, an inference must be drawn that what is not included by specific reference was intended to be omitted or excluded”).

2001Similar to the reasoning we relied upon in the contractual context, we adopt Justice Wells' reasoning from Provident I and hold that "[w]hen the governmental body invokes a court's equitable jurisdiction, it necessarily casts aside its cloak of immunity and is like any other litigant." 718 So.2d at 740 (Wells, J. concurring).

2001See id. at 740-41 . [6] We must address this issue now because, on remand from this Court in Provident I, the Second District concluded that although the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not preclude an award of damages against the City, the damages award was subject to the limitations of section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes (1989). [7] See Provident II, 738 So.2d at 362 .

2001See id. at 740-41 . [6] We must address this issue now because, on remand from this Court in Provident I, the Second District concluded that although the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not preclude an award of damages against the City, the damages award was subject to the limitations of section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes (1989). [7] See Provident II, 738 So.2d at 362 .

2000See State Dep't of Corrections v. Parker, 553 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (finding that both the wife and the estate were separately injured by the death of the husband; therefore, the wife's action for loss of consortium was distinct from that of the estate and the $100,000 limit was for each claimant); State Dep't of Transp. v. Knowles, 388 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (holding that the limitation of section 768.28(5) does not apply to separate claims by different individuals in the same lawsuit), aff'd, 402 So.2d 1155 (Fla.1981); State Board of Regents v. Yant, 360 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA

1996See, e.g., Kamani v. Port of Houston Auth., 702 F.2d 612 (5th Cir.1983) (notice requirement clearly intended by state as limitation on waiver of sovereign immunity as to tort claims generally controls, notwithstanding fact that claim is based on maritime tort).

1995See, e.g., Szabo v. Essex Chemical Corp., 461 So.2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (in Florida, filing of complaint tolls statute of limitations).

1986Burkett v. Calhoun County, 441 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Dukanauskas; see Halpin v. Short, 490 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); cf. Wemett v. Duval County, 485 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (dismissal of complaint with prejudice error where plaintiff could comply with § 768.28(6)(a) within limitations period); Lee v. South Broward Hospital District, 473 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (same); Askew v. County of Volusia, 450 So.2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (same).