Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 337.19 (2025)

Suits by and against department; limitation of actions; forum.

✓ 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

337.19 Suits by and against department; limitation of actions; forum.—

(1) Suits at law and in equity may be brought and maintained by and against the department on any contract claim arising from breach of an express provision or an implied covenant of a written agreement or a written directive issued by the department pursuant to the written agreement. In any such suit, the department and the contractor shall have all of the same rights and obligations as a private person under a like contract except that no liability may be based on an oral modification of either the written contract or written directive. Nothing herein shall be construed to waive the sovereign immunity of the state and its political subdivisions from equitable claims and equitable remedies. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section, no employee or agent of the department may be held personally liable to an extent greater than that pursuant to s. 768.28 provided that no suit sounding in tort shall be maintained against the department.

(2) Suits by and against the department under this section shall be commenced within 820 days of the final acceptance of the work. This section shall apply to all contracts entered into after June 30, 1993.

(3) Any action or suit brought against the department shall be brought in the county or counties where the cause of action accrued, or in the county of the department’s district headquarters responsible for the work, or in Leon County.

History.—s. 98, ch. 29965, 1955; ss. 1, 2, ch. 69-391; s. 1, ch. 84-206; s. 159, ch. 84-309; s. 28, ch. 93-164; s. 158, ch. 96-320; s. 66, ch. 96-323; s. 3, ch. 99-345.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases, 1958–2018 · leading case: Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Com'n, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Com'n, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1977). · cites it 3× “23(9)(d), Florida Statutes (1975); Section 337.19, Florida Statutes (1975); Section 455.”

White Const. Co., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp., 860 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). · cites it 8× “DOT opposed the arbitration request arguing that the claim was barred because it was filed beyond the 820-day time limitation in section 337.19, Florida Statutes (1999). In denying arbitration, however, the Board relied upon neither section 337.”

Fl. Dept. of Env't Prot. v. Contractpoint Florida Parks, LLC, 986 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2008). “5th DCA 2005) (rejecting DOT's claim that section 337.19, requiring that suit be brought on a contract within 820 days, was a "limited sovereign immunity statute" because Pan-Am held sovereign immunity is waived for express contracts); White Constr.”

Dep't of Transp. v. United Capital Funding Corp., 219 So. 3d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 337.19(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). The question is whether a claim by an assignee of contractual accounts receivable—here, United Capital—based on the Department’s failure to payas required by the contract falls outside of this waiver.”

Broward Cnty. v. Finlayson, 555 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1990). · cites it 2× “With the exception of the right to sue the state road department (section 337.19, Florida Statutes), I can locate no statutory authorization for suits against the state for breach of employment contracts.”

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 352 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). · cites it 3× “In Section 337.19(3), Florida Statutes (1975), the Florida Legislature waived the venue privilege in contract suits against the Department of Transportation.”

Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Dept. of Gen. Servs., 363 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). · cites it 2× “Section 337.19, Florida Statutes (1967). We likewise reject the Department's contention that Chapter 120 is unconstitutional because its enacting bill gave no notice of an intention to waive the sovereign's immunity to the extent provided in the Act.”

State, Dept. of Transp. v. San Marco Cont. Co., 355 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). · cites it 5× “Section 337.19(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides that actions may be maintained against DOT "on any claim under contract for work done .”

Grading & Bush Hog Servs. v. Florida Dot, 894 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). · cites it 13× “Noteworthy, the issuance of such as an agreement is necessary to insure the contractor's ability to seek payment for work performed but not covered by the initial contract.”

State v. Negrin, 306 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). · cites it 6× “Whether or not the quoted clause from subsection (1) of F.S. 337.19 is constitutional, it clearly reveals that the Legislature did not intend for that statute, F.”

San Marco Contracting Co. v. State, 386 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). · cites it 3× “Further, the rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable because no administrative rule, remedy, or procedure is involved. The Florida legislature has provided by statute that the D.”

Depart. of Transpor. v. Cone & Graham, Inc., 884 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · cites it 2× “The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Department appealed the nonfinal order concerning venue pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— 337.19(1) — 8 cases

Dep't of Transp. v. United Capital Funding Corp., 219 So. 3d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). “§ 337.19(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). The question is whether a claim by an assignee of contractual accounts receivable—here, United Capital—based on the Department’s failure to payas required by the contract falls outside of this waiver.”

State, Dept. of Transp. v. San Marco Cont. Co., 355 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). “Section 337.19(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides that actions may be maintained against DOT "on any claim under contract for work done .”

State, Dep't of Transp. v. Chothen, 328 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

State Ex Rel., Div. Of Admin. v. Oliff, 350 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

State ex rel. Div. of Admin. v. Oliff, 350 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

— 337.19(2) — 2 cases

Grading & Bush Hog Servs. v. Florida Dot, 894 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “Noteworthy, the issuance of such as an agreement is necessary to insure the contractor's ability to seek payment for work performed but not covered by the initial contract.”

White Const. Co., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp., 860 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “DOT opposed the arbitration request arguing that the claim was barred because it was filed beyond the 820-day time limitation in section 337.19, Florida Statutes (1999). In denying arbitration, however, the Board relied upon neither section 337.”

— 337.19(3) — 8 cases

Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Com'n, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1977). “23(9)(d), Florida Statutes (1975); Section 337.19, Florida Statutes (1975); Section 455.”

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 352 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). “In Section 337.19(3), Florida Statutes (1975), the Florida Legislature waived the venue privilege in contract suits against the Department of Transportation.”

Depart. of Transpor. v. Cone & Graham, Inc., 884 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Department appealed the nonfinal order concerning venue pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.”

State v. Negrin, 306 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). “Whether or not the quoted clause from subsection (1) of F.S. 337.19 is constitutional, it clearly reveals that the Legislature did not intend for that statute, F.”

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.