## Facts

- Carrie H. Robinson, a West Virginia resident, alleged she suffered birth injuries on May 12, 1977, due to medical negligence by Dr. Carmelo Terlizzi during delivery at a West Virginia hospital.
- Robinson and Terlizzi were West Virginia residents at the time of the alleged negligence, and all medical care and injury occurred in West Virginia.
- Terlizzi later retired to Florida, died there in 1987, and his estate was administered in Florida.
- Robinson sued the estate’s representative in Florida state court, asserting the claim remained timely if West Virginia’s limitations and minor-tolling rules applied.

## Issues

1. In a Florida-filed tort action for injuries occurring in another state, must Florida courts use the Bates “most significant relationship” test to decide whether Florida’s statute of limitations or the foreign state’s limitations (including tolling) applies when the claim is untimely under Florida law?
2. If the Bates test applies, which state has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, and therefore supplies the governing limitations and tolling rules?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the rephrased certified question “yes”: the Bates significant-relationship test applies even when the claim is time-barred under Florida’s statute of limitations, § 95.11.
- Applying that test, the court held West Virginia had the most significant relationship because the alleged negligence, injury, and relevant residences at the time were all in West Virginia.
- The court approved the decision applying West Virginia’s statute of limitations and tolling provision for minors, allowing Robinson’s claim to proceed.
- The court disapproved the conflicting district court approach that had applied Florida’s limitation period without the Bates analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Florida courts use the Restatement-based “most significant relationship” test to choose the applicable statute of limitations in multistate tort cases.
- The Bates choice-of-law method governs limitations disputes not only under Florida’s borrowing statute (§ 95.10) but also when a claim is facially untimely under Florida’s limitations statute (§ 95.11).
- When another state has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties, that state’s limitations rules—including tolling provisions—apply in the Florida forum.

## Conclusion

Florida must determine the applicable limitations law in multistate tort suits using the Bates significant-relationship test, and where the foreign state has the strongest connection to the events and parties, its limitations and tolling rules control even if Florida’s limitation period would otherwise bar the action.


Merkle v. Robinson, 737 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1999)