## Facts

- In 1979, S.A.P., age four, was placed in foster care under the supervision of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS).
- S.A.P. alleged she suffered severe abuse and neglect by foster parents (including burns, beatings, and malnourishment) due to HRS’s negligent failure to supervise, monitor, and remove her from the placement.
- S.A.P. alleged that, during her minority, HRS affirmatively concealed facts concerning its negligence and obstructed investigation into the abuse, including by concealing, altering, or falsifying records and interfering with law enforcement.
- HRS’s internal investigation was allegedly not completed until 1992.
- S.A.P. filed a negligence action against HRS in 1995, after reaching majority.
- The trial court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice as time-barred under the four-year limitations period applicable to tort claims against the state.
- The district court of appeal reversed, concluding the complaint sufficiently alleged fraudulent concealment/equitable estoppel to defeat the limitations defense at the pleading stage, and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether equitable estoppel (including conduct described as fraudulent concealment) can bar a state agency from asserting the four-year statute of limitations in section 768.28(12), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action.
2. Whether a complaint alleging post-injury concealment and obstruction by the agency states a sufficient basis to avoid dismissal as time-barred.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in substance by holding that equitable estoppel may preclude a state agency from asserting section 768.28(12)’s statute of limitations.
- The Court rejected the argument that the limitations period in section 768.28(12) is an absolute, jurisdictional bar immune from equitable estoppel.
- The Court held that S.A.P.’s allegations, taken as true on a motion to dismiss, were sufficient to plead equitable estoppel based on HRS’s alleged concealment and obstruction.
- The Court approved the district court’s result, reversed the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Equitable estoppel can prevent a defendant from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense when the defendant’s conduct induced the plaintiff to forbear filing within the limitations period.
- Equitable estoppel differs from statutory tolling; it is an equitable bar based on the defendant’s post-accrual conduct rather than a legislatively defined suspension of time.
- Equitable estoppel may be applied against the state when justified by the facts; state agencies are not categorically exempt from estoppel in limitations disputes.
- Section 768.28(12)’s four-year limitations period is subject to equitable estoppel when the state’s wrongful conduct caused the plaintiff’s delay.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff may invoke equitable estoppel to defeat a state agency’s statute-of-limitations defense under section 768.28(12) when the agency’s post-injury concealment or obstruction allegedly caused delayed filing, and that such allegations are sufficient to survive dismissal at the pleading stage.


Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. S.A.P., 835 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2002)