THE TOLLING PROSCRIPTION OF FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 95.051 (1991) DOES NOT EMBRACE THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL BECAUSE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL IS NOT A TOLLING DOCTRINE.

Plaintiffs sued Major League Baseball for, among other things, tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ acquisition of the Minnesota Twins.  Plaintiffs alleged that they took and refrained from taking several actions based upon assurances from Major League Baseball that Plaintiffs would be in position to acquire a majority stake in a major league franchise prior to the 1993 season.  In response to the lawsuit, Major League Baseball filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations applicable to tortious interference claims had expired.  Plaintiffs conceded that the limitations period had run, but argued that Major League Baseball was equitably estopped from raising that defense because it had induced Plaintiffs to forbear filing suit.

The trial court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that equitable estoppel is not a permissible basis for avoiding the effect of a statute of limitations under Florida Statutes, Section 95.051, which provides, in part, that “[n]o disability or other reason shall toll the running of any statute of limitations except for those specified in this section . . . .”  See FLA. STAT.  95.051(2).  Section 95.051 does not list equitable estoppel among the enumerated grounds that are sufficient to toll the running of a statute of limitations.  The appellate court reversed, holding that the equitable estoppel doctrine can bar a statute of limitations defense.  The appellate court also certified the following question:

Does Florida Statutes, Section 95.051 prohibit the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to an action filed outside the applicable statute of limitations?

The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that the tolling proscription of Section 95.051 does not embrace the common law doctrine of equitable estoppel.  The Court noted that the doctrine of equitable estoppel arises when one party lulls the other into a disadvantageous legal position and operates by presupposing a legal shortcoming in a party’s case that is directly attributable to the other party’s misconduct, barring the other party from asserting the shortcoming and profiting from its own misconduct.  Accordingly, the Court noted that the operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel differed from the concept tolling, which contemplates a suspension of the running of a statute of limitations until a specified condition is settled.  As Section 95.051 refers to tolling, and equitable estoppel is not a tolling doctrine, Section 95.051 does not prohibit the application of the equitable estoppel doctrine to an action filed outside the applicable limitations period.

The Chief Justice concurred, writing separately to point out that, in his view, the Court’s holding means that a plaintiff that properly pleads equitable estoppel in reply to an answer raising a statute of limitations defense and then carries the burden of proof with respect to that issue can avoid the statute of limitations defense.

Major League Baseball v. Morsani,
26 Fla. L. Weekly S465 (Fla. July 12, 2001).