337.19
Suits by and against department; limitation of actions; forum.
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 AND FRESH WATER FISH COM'N
Carlile v. GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COM'N (1977)
“23(9)(d), Florida Statutes (1975); Section 337.19, Florida Statutes (1975); Section 455.”
White Const. Co., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp. (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.”
FL. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. Contractpoint Florida Parks, LLC (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.”
Department of Transportation v. United Capital Funding Corp. (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.”
Broward County v. Finlayson (1990)
“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 Transportation (1977)
“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 General Services (1978)
“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. (1978)
“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 Services v. Florida Dot (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.”
State v. Negrin (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.”
San Marco Contracting Company v. State (1980)
“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. (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.”
— 337.19(1) — 8 cases
Department of Transportation v. United Capital Funding Corp. (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. (1978)
“Section 337.19(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides that actions may be maintained against DOT "on any claim under contract for work done .”
— 337.19(2) — 2 cases
Grading & Bush Hog Services v. Florida Dot (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. (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 AND FRESH WATER FISH COM'N (1977)
“23(9)(d), Florida Statutes (1975); Section 337.19, Florida Statutes (1975); Section 455.”
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Transportation (1977)
“In Section 337.19(3), Florida Statutes (1975), the Florida Legislature waived the venue privilege in contract suits against the Department of Transportation.”
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. San Marco Cont. Co. (1978)
“Section 337.19(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides that actions may be maintained against DOT "on any claim under contract for work done .”
DEPART. OF TRANSPOR. v. Cone & Graham, Inc. (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 (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.