Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 95.051 (2025)

When limitations tolled.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

95.051 When limitations tolled.—

(1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 is tolled by:

(a) Absence from the state of the person to be sued.

(b) Use by the person to be sued of a false name that is unknown to the person entitled to sue so that process cannot be served on the person to be sued.

(d) The adjudicated incapacity, before the cause of action accrued, of the person entitled to sue. In any event, the action must be begun within 7 years after the act, event, or occurrence giving rise to the cause of action.

(e) Voluntary payments by the alleged father of the child in paternity actions during the time of the payments.

(f) The payment of any part of the principal or interest of any obligation or liability founded on a written instrument.

(g) The pendency of any arbitral proceeding pertaining to a dispute that is the subject of the action.

(h) The period of an intervening bankruptcy tolls the expiration period of a tax certificate under s. 197.482 and any proceeding or process under chapter 197.

(i) The minority or previously adjudicated incapacity of the person entitled to sue during any period of time in which a parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem does not exist, has an interest adverse to the minor or incapacitated person, or is adjudicated to be incapacitated to sue; except with respect to the statute of limitations for a claim for medical malpractice as provided in s. 95.11. In any event, the action must be begun within 7 years after the act, event, or occurrence giving rise to the cause of action.

Paragraphs (a)-(c) shall not apply if service of process or service by publication can be made in a manner sufficient to confer jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. This section shall not be construed to limit the ability of any person to initiate an action within 30 days after the lifting of an automatic stay issued in a bankruptcy action as is provided in 11 U.S.C. s. 108(c).

(2) A disability or other reason does not toll the running of any statute of limitations except those specified in this section, s. 95.091, the Florida Probate Code, or the Florida Guardianship Law.

History.—s. 16, Nov. 10, 1828; ss. 14, 17, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1284, 1285; GS 1715, 1716; RGS 2928, 2929; CGL 4648, 4649; s. 4, ch. 74-382; s. 2, ch. 75-234; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 3, ch. 86-266; s. 1, ch. 89-26; s. 1, ch. 90-105; s. 519, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 2011-151.

Note.—Former ss. 95.05, 95.07.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 163 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 2018). · cites it 104× “§ 95.051(1)(h), Fla. Stat. (2006).5 The Twins argued their claims were based on the Mother’s inability to care for them, and that her interests were therefore adverse to theirs both with respect to the Twins’ tort claims and in light of the dependency case which was pending…”

Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2001). · cites it 21× “§ 95.051, Fla. Stat. (1991) (emphasis added).”

Brown v. Nationscredit Fin. Servs. Corp., 32 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 62× “In 1974, however, the legislature enacted section 95.051, Florida Statutes, which provided for a set of exceptions to the statute of limitations.”

D.H. Ex Rel. R.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 217 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). · cites it 20× “The twins' complaint was filed on November 22, 2010, and asserts solely claims for negligence.”

HCA Health Servs. of Florida v. Hillman, 906 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · cites it 13× “051(1) enumerates eight circumstances under which the running of the time under any statute of limitations is tolled.”

Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 8× “051(1) contains a list of specific circumstances in which the running of the time under statutes of limitations (subject to the exception of certain statutes) is tolled.”

Doe No. 3 v. Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, Inc., 217 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). · cites it 11× “Second, the appellees argue that Drake is no longer good law, because the legislature amended section 95.051, Florida Statutes, in 1990, six years after Drake , to add the following regarding minors and statutes of limitations: (1) The running of the time under any statute of…”

Putnam Berkley Grp., Inc. v. Dinin, 734 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). · cites it 17× “The court then traced the use of the "fraudulent concealment" avoidance in several earlier cases, but ultimately explained: "However, in 1974, the legislature enacted section 95.051, Florida Statutes, see ch.”

State Dept. of Health, Etc. v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1979). · cites it 8× “The trial court denied the petition for rehearing, held that the term "voluntary payments" as used in section 95.051(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1975), should be given its ordinary meaning, and upheld the constitutionality of section 95.”

Florida Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. S.A.P., 835 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2002). · cites it 15× “051 sets forth an exclusive list of conditions that can "toll” the running of the statute of limitations; the section states that no other condition can toll the statute of limitations.”

Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 6× “See § 95.051, Fla. Stat. (1987). To that end, the Legislature enumerated specific grounds for tolling limitation periods, but did not include delayed discovery due to lack of memory.”

Starling v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 16× “23 The Eleventh Circuit has explained: *1234 Florida law does allow for tolling in certain instances, Fla. Stat. § 95.051 , but that list is exhaustive, id.”

Show all 163 citing cases →

— 95.051(1) — 15 cases

HCA Health Servs. of Florida v. Hillman, 906 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “051(1) enumerates eight circumstances under which the running of the time under any statute of limitations is tolled.”

Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2000). “See § 95.051, Fla. Stat. (1987). To that end, the Legislature enumerated specific grounds for tolling limitation periods, but did not include delayed discovery due to lack of memory.”

Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2009). “051(1) contains a list of specific circumstances in which the running of the time under statutes of limitations (subject to the exception of certain statutes) is tolled.”

Doe No. 3 v. Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, Inc., 217 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Second, the appellees argue that Drake is no longer good law, because the legislature amended section 95.051, Florida Statutes, in 1990, six years after Drake , to add the following regarding minors and statutes of limitations: (1) The running of the time under any statute of…”

Brown v. Nationscredit Fin. Servs. Corp., 32 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “In 1974, however, the legislature enacted section 95.051, Florida Statutes, which provided for a set of exceptions to the statute of limitations.”

— 95.051(1)(a) — 2 cases

Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1979).

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, Etc. v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

— 95.051(1)(b) — 2 cases

Putnam Berkley Grp., Inc. v. Dinin, 734 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). “The court then traced the use of the "fraudulent concealment" avoidance in several earlier cases, but ultimately explained: "However, in 1974, the legislature enacted section 95.051, Florida Statutes, see ch.”

Grantham v. Blount, Inc., 683 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

— 95.051(1)(d) — 2 cases

Musculoskeletal Inst. v. Parham, 745 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1999).

Hoke v. Walker (N.D. Fla. 2025).

— 95.051(1)(e) — 1 case

State Dept. of Health, Etc. v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1979). “The trial court denied the petition for rehearing, held that the term "voluntary payments" as used in section 95.051(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1975), should be given its ordinary meaning, and upheld the constitutionality of section 95.”

— 95.051(1)(f) — 9 cases

SOUTH MOTOR CO. v. Doktorczyk, 957 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

S. Specialties, Inc. v. Farmhouse Tomatoes, Inc, 259 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Cuillo v. McCoy, 810 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, Etc. v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

— 95.051(1)(g) — 5 cases

Glantzis v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Haskins v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 898 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Centimark Corp., 967 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Swartzman v. Harlan, 535 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Hankey v. Yarian, 755 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2000).

— 95.051(1)(h) — 7 cases

D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 2018). “§ 95.051(1)(h), Fla. Stat. (2006).5 The Twins argued their claims were based on the Mother’s inability to care for them, and that her interests were therefore adverse to theirs both with respect to the Twins’ tort claims and in light of the dependency case which was pending…”

D.H. Ex Rel. R.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 217 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). “The twins' complaint was filed on November 22, 2010, and asserts solely claims for negligence.”

Florida Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. S.A.P., 835 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2002). “051 sets forth an exclusive list of conditions that can "toll” the running of the statute of limitations; the section states that no other condition can toll the statute of limitations.”

Doe v. Dorsey, 683 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Sap v. State, Dhrs, 704 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

— 95.051(1)(i) — 3 cases

R.R. v. New Life, 248 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

R.R. v. New Life Cmty. Church of CMA, Inc. (Fla. 2020).

— 95.051(2) — 26 cases

Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2001). “§ 95.051, Fla. Stat. (1991) (emphasis added).”

— 95.051(a) — 3 cases

New York State Dept. of Taxation v. Patafio, 829 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Commercebank, Na v. Taylor, 964 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Treminio v. Crowley Mar. Corp. (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 95.051(c) — 2 cases

United States v. Olavarrieta, 632 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. Fla. 1986).

Stolowitz v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2022).

— 95.051(f) — 2 cases

In Re Whittaker, 177 B.R. 360 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1994).

Lanoue v. Rizk, 987 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

— 95.051(g) — 1 case

Kalu v. Love (S.D. Fla. 2020).

— 95.051(l)(a) — 2 cases

Elaine Hess, etc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 2015).

Abbott v. Kiser, 654 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

— 95.051(l)(b) — 1 case

M.J.O. Holding Corp. v. Heller, 97 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

— 95.051(l)(f) — 5 cases

Quaintance v. Fogg, 392 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Arvelo v. Park Fin. of Broward, Inc., 15 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Benfield v. Everest Venture Grp., Inc., 801 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Herder v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 708 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

— 95.051(l)(h) — 3 cases

D.H. Ex Rel. R.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 217 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). “The twins' complaint was filed on November 22, 2010, and asserts solely claims for negligence.”

S.A.P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 704 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

— 95.051(l)(i) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.