Opinion ID: 1627367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: confusion surrounding accrual and tolling as they relate to the delayed discovery doctrine

Text: The district court correctly identified a certain amount of confusion regarding this Court's application of the delayed discovery doctrine-sometimes the Court stated that the doctrine delayed the accrual of the cause of action and other times we stated that the doctrine affected the tolling of the statute of limitations. See Hearndon, 710 So.2d at 90-91. Compare Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25, 39 (Fla.1976)(holding that the statute of limitations will be tolled when it can be shown that fraud has been perpetrated on the injured party sufficient to place him in ignorance of his right to a cause of action or to prevent him from discovering his injury), modified on other grounds, Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So.2d 177 (Fla.1993); and Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Ford, 92 So.2d 160, 165 (Fla.1955) (explaining that delayed discovery tolls running of statute of limitation); with Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank v. Edgerly, 121 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla.1960) (holding that cause of action by depositor against bank for bank's wrongful payment on forged check endorsement accrued when the depositor learned of the forgery); and City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla.1954) (holding that the statute must be held to attach when the plaintiff was first put upon notice or had reason to believe that her right of action had accrued). [1] As we explain below, however, the delayed discovery doctrine may only be applied to the accrual of a cause of action. The determination of whether a cause of action is time-barred may involve the separate and distinct issues of when the action accrued and whether the limitation period was tolled. A statute of limitations runs from the time the cause of action accrues which, in turn, is generally determined by the date when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs. § 95.031, Fla. Stat. (1987). See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee, 678 So.2d 818, 821 (Fla.1996)([A] cause of action cannot be said to have accrued, within the meaning of the statute of limitations, until an action may be brought.). The tolling of a limitation period would interrupt the running thereof subsequent to accrual. 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. See § 95.051(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). Furthermore, the tolling statute specifically precludes application of any tolling provision not specifically provided therein. See § 95.051(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). We extrapolate, therefore, that while accrual pertains to the existence of a cause of action which then triggers the running of a statute of limitations, tolling focuses directly on limitation periods and interrupting the running thereof. That both accrual and tolling may be employed to postpone the running of a statute of limitations so that an action would not become time-barred should not cause confusion between these distinct concepts. [2] Thus, a determination of whether a cause of action is time-barred pursuant to the expiration of a statute of limitations may require two different analyses: First, whether the cause of action accrued and, if so, when; and, second, whether a statutory tolling provision applies. In light of the above distinction, we recognize that the Legislature limited the justification for tolling limitation periods to the exclusion of delayed discovery due to loss of memory, but did not likewise limit the circumstances under which accrual may have been delayed. [3] We therefore recede from our past decisions that applied the delayed discovery doctrine to toll the running of a statute of limitation. The Florida Statutes do not impede, however, the delay of the accrual of the cause of action. [4]