Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 774.206 (2025)
Statute of limitations; two-disease rule.
✓ 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
774.206 Statute of limitations; two-disease rule.—
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, with respect to any asbestos or silica claim not barred as of the effective date of this act, the limitations period does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is physically impaired by an asbestos-related or silica-related condition.
(2) An asbestos or silica claim arising out of a nonmalignant condition shall be a distinct cause of action from an asbestos or silica claim relating to the same exposed person arising out of asbestos-related or silica-related cancer. Damages may not be awarded for fear or risk of cancer in a civil action asserting an asbestos or silica claim.
(3) A settlement of a nonmalignant asbestos or silica claim concluded after the effective date of this act may not require, as a condition of settlement, the release of any future claim for asbestos-related or silica-related cancer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2006–2011 · leading case: Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2011).
Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2011). “Section 774.206(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that the statute of limitations does not begin to run on an asbestos claim arising out of a nonmalignant condition “until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered,…”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Hurst, 949 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). “" [3] The Act clearly provides that the statute of limitations period "does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is physically impaired by an asbestos-related or silica-related…”
In Re Asbestos Litig., 933 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “It dealt with this concern by enacting section 774.206(1), which provides in part that the limitations period on an asbestos claim does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is…”
Mobil Corp. v. Mallia, 933 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “It dealt with this concern by enacting section 774.206(1), which provides in part that the limitations period on an asbestos claim does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is…”
— 774.206(1) — 4 cases
Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2011). “Section 774.206(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that the statute of limitations does not begin to run on an asbestos claim arising out of a nonmalignant condition “until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered,…”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Hurst, 949 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). “" [3] The Act clearly provides that the statute of limitations period "does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is physically impaired by an asbestos-related or silica-related…”
In Re Asbestos Litig., 933 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “It dealt with this concern by enacting section 774.206(1), which provides in part that the limitations period on an asbestos claim does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is…”
Mobil Corp. v. Mallia, 933 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “It dealt with this concern by enacting section 774.206(1), which provides in part that the limitations period on an asbestos claim does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is…”
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.