Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 376.313 (2025)
Nonexclusiveness of remedies and individual cause of action for damages under ss. 376.30-376.317.
✓ 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
376.313 Nonexclusiveness of remedies and individual cause of action for damages under ss. 376.30-376.317.—
(2) Nothing in ss. 376.30-376.317 requires the pursuit of any claim against the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund or the Inland Protection Trust Fund as a condition precedent to any other remedy.
(3) Except as provided in s. 376.3078(3) and (11), nothing contained in ss. 376.30-376.317 prohibits any person from bringing a cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction for all damages resulting from a discharge or other condition of pollution covered by ss. 376.30-376.317 and which was not authorized pursuant to chapter 403. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit or diminish a party’s right to contribution from other parties jointly or severally liable for a prohibited discharge of pollutants or hazardous substances or other pollution conditions. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) or subsection (5), in any such suit, it is not necessary for such person to plead or prove negligence in any form or manner. Such person need only plead and prove the fact of the prohibited discharge or other pollutive condition and that it has occurred. The only defenses to such cause of action shall be those specified in s. 376.308.
(4) In any civil action brought after July 1, 1986, against the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system for damages arising from a petroleum storage system discharge, the provisions of subsection (3) shall not apply if it can be proven that, at the time of the discharge:
(a) The alleged damages resulted solely from a discharge from a petroleum storage system which was installed, replaced, or retrofitted, and maintained, in a manner consistent with the construction, operation, repair, and maintenance standards established for such systems under chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code, as that chapter may hereafter be amended. The requirement of consistency with such standards may be satisfied only by being in compliance with the standards at the time of the discharge, regardless of the time specified for compliance under the schedule provided in said chapter.
(b) A leak detection system or systems or a monitoring well or wells were installed and operating in a manner consistent with technical requirements of chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code, as that chapter may hereafter be amended; and
(c) All inventory, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code, as that chapter may hereafter be amended, have been and are being complied with.
Any person bringing such an action must prove negligence to recover damages under this subsection. For the purposes of this subsection, noncompliance with this act, or any of the rules promulgated pursuant hereto, as the same may hereafter be amended, shall be prima facie evidence of negligence.
(5)(a) In any civil action against the owner or operator of a drycleaning facility or a wholesale supply facility, or the owner of the real property on which such facility is located, if such facility is not eligible under s. 376.3078(3) and is not involved in voluntary cleanup under s. 376.3078(11), for damages arising from the discharge of drycleaning solvents from a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility, the provisions of subsection (3) shall not apply if it can be proven that, at the time of the discharge the alleged damages resulted solely from a discharge from a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility that was in compliance with department rules regulating drycleaning facilities or wholesale supply facilities.
(b) Any person bringing such an action must prove negligence in order to recover damages under this subsection. For the purposes of this subsection, noncompliance with s. 376.303 or s. 376.3078, or any of the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, or any applicable state or federal law or regulation, as the same may hereafter be amended, shall be prima facie evidence of negligence.
(6) The court, in issuing any final judgment in any such action, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney’s and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such an award is in the public interest.
History.—s. 84, ch. 83-310; s. 12, ch. 84-338; ss. 20, 21, ch. 86-159; s. 12, ch. 92-30; s. 10, ch. 94-355; s. 6, ch. 95-239; ss. 17, 18, ch. 98-75; s. 12, ch. 98-189; s. 6, ch. 2003-276; s. 68, ch. 2007-5; s. 16, ch. 2013-92.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Aramark Unif. & Apparel v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2004).
Aramark Unif. & Apparel v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2004). “313(3) created a cause of action for strict liability against an adjoining landowner and did not require proof that the defendant had caused the contamination.”
Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 2010). “The title of section 376.313, “Nonexclusiveness of remedies and individual cause of action for damages under ss.”
Mostoufi v. Presto Food Stores, Inc., 618 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). “Appellant asserts that neither Presto's status as a remote predecessor in title nor the doctrine of caveat emptor are valid defenses to the statutory cause of action that appellant alleges was created by section 376.313, Florida Statutes (1989).”
Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 558 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). “11, Florida Statutes); (2) whether the trial court erred in dismissing claims based on public nuisance (Section 376.”
Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). “(1983) (paternity determinations); § 376.313, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1984) (pollution damage actions); § 119.”
Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 993 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). “Because we conclude that the issue of whether commercial fishermen may recover economic losses arising from the release of pollution in Florida waters, either under principles of common law negligence or under section 376.313, Florida Statutes (2004), is a matter of great public…”
The St. Joe Co. v. Leslie, 912 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “See § 376.313, Fla. Stat. (requiring only that plaintiff "plead and prove the fact of the prohibited discharge or other pollutive condition and that it has occurred"); Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel, Inc.”
Kaplan v. Peterson, 674 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). “[17] Section 376.313, Florida Statutes (1989) provides: (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing contained in ss.”
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. United States, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2004). “Counts VIII, IX, and X alleges claims for contribution and other relief *1354 under state law, Fla. Stat. §§ 376.313 and 403.727, and Chapter 24 of the Miami-Dade County Code.”
Magaly Pinares v. United Tech. Corp., 768 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2014). “The plaintiffs initially asserted Florida common-law claims sounding in negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, trespass, and nuisance, as well as a statutory claim under Fla. Stat. § 376.313 . In Pinares, the plaintiff (who alleged that she had developed cancer as a…”
Annette Florence v. Crescent Resources, LLC, 484 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2007). “Each Plaintiff moved to remand to state court, arguing that § 376.313, Fla. Stat. imposes strict liability on the owners of contaminated land and does not require Plaintiffs to prove any causal connection between their exposure to hazardous substances and the current owners’ use…”
Suarez v. City of Tampa, 987 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). “Suarez and the Suarez Family Trust, the equitable and legal owners of the property where the garbage was dumped, brought suit against the City asserting claims for (a) inverse condemnation, (b) continuing trespass, and (c) declaratory relief as to a statutory cause of action…”
— 376.313(1) — 2 cases
Aramark Unif. & Apparel v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2004). “313(3) created a cause of action for strict liability against an adjoining landowner and did not require proof that the defendant had caused the contamination.”
Irizarry v. Orlando Utils. Comm'n (M.D. Fla. 2019).
— 376.313(3) — 20 cases
Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 2010). “The title of section 376.313, “Nonexclusiveness of remedies and individual cause of action for damages under ss.”
Aramark Unif. & Apparel v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2004). “313(3) created a cause of action for strict liability against an adjoining landowner and did not require proof that the defendant had caused the contamination.”
Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 993 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). “Because we conclude that the issue of whether commercial fishermen may recover economic losses arising from the release of pollution in Florida waters, either under principles of common law negligence or under section 376.313, Florida Statutes (2004), is a matter of great public…”
Suarez v. City of Tampa, 987 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). “Suarez and the Suarez Family Trust, the equitable and legal owners of the property where the garbage was dumped, brought suit against the City asserting claims for (a) inverse condemnation, (b) continuing trespass, and (c) declaratory relief as to a statutory cause of action…”
Simon's Trucking, Inc. v. Charles A. Lieupo, 244 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
— 376.313(5) — 3 cases
Mcmullen Oil v. Iss Intern. Serv., 698 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Kaplan v. Peterson, 674 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). “[17] Section 376.313, Florida Statutes (1989) provides: (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing contained in ss.”
Boardman Petro. v. Tropic Tint of Jupiter, 668 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
— 376.313(6) — 1 case
Aramark Unif. & Apparel v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2004). “313(3) created a cause of action for strict liability against an adjoining landowner and did not require proof that the defendant had caused the contamination.”
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.