Causes of Action Based on Improvements to Real Property
HB 705 revises Florida’s statute of limitations for lawsuits arising from the design, planning, or construction of improvements to real property. The bill replaces the current trigger for the limitations period with a new framework tied more directly to the “completion of the improvement” or, in some cases, the “completion of the contract,” and it defines both of those terms in statute. It also keeps the general four-year limitations period for these actions, while preserving the separate rule for latent defects, which still runs from discovery or when the defect should have been discovered with due diligence.
The bill also establishes a seven-year outer deadline for bringing these claims, measured from the earliest of the specified completion, abandonment, termination, or contract-completion dates. It clarifies that certain repair or correction work does not extend the filing deadline, and it adds special rules for model homes and for projects involving multiple buildings, treating each building as its own improvement for limitations purposes. The measure would amend section 95.11, Florida Statutes, and take effect immediately upon becoming law.
HB 705 would change how Florida courts, property owners, contractors, architects, engineers, and other design professionals determine when the clock starts and ends for construction-defect and related real-property claims. By redefining the triggering events and adding statutory definitions, the bill would likely reduce ambiguity over when a claim accrues and when the absolute filing deadline expires. It would affect actions founded on design, planning, or construction of improvements to real property under section 95.11, Florida Statutes, while preserving the existing latent-defect discovery rule and the one-year window for counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and technical rather than overtly partisan. The measure reads as a clarification and modernization of limitations rules for construction-related litigation, suggesting an intent to provide greater certainty for the construction industry and property stakeholders. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is available in the supplied context to indicate broader controversy.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s effect on the timing of construction-defect lawsuits. Property owners and plaintiffs may view the revised accrual rules and seven-year outer limit as potentially narrowing the time available to sue, especially where defects are discovered late or where completion is defined by occupancy, inspections, or contract completion rather than by a later practical endpoint. By contrast, builders, contractors, and design professionals may support the bill because it creates clearer deadlines and reduces exposure to long-tail liability. The special rule that repair or warranty work does not extend the limitations period may also be contested by parties who rely on post-completion remediation efforts.