## Facts

- Mohamed Mezroub and Javier F. Capella were residents of Sarasota County, Florida, at all relevant times.
- The parties traveled from Florida to Georgia in Capella’s car to attend a convention, based on their shared religious interests.
- On November 27, 1993, Capella (driving) was involved in an automobile accident on Interstate 75 near Atlanta, Georgia, injuring Mezroub.
- Mezroub received medical treatment primarily in Sarasota County, Florida.
- On January 23, 1996, Mezroub filed a negligence-based personal injury action in Sarasota County, Florida.
- The action was timely under Florida’s four-year limitations period for negligence but untimely under Georgia’s two-year personal injury limitations period.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s borrowing statute, Fla. Stat. § 95.10, required application of Georgia’s two-year statute of limitations because the accident occurred in Georgia.
2. Whether Florida courts must apply a “significant relationship” choice-of-law analysis to determine whether to borrow a foreign limitations period.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal with prejudice and remanded.
- The trial court erred by mechanically applying Georgia’s statute of limitations based solely on the accident’s location.
- Applying the significant-relationship analysis, Florida had the more substantial connection to the parties and dispute, so Florida’s statute of limitations governed.
- Because the suit was timely under Florida law, it was not barred by limitations.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s borrowing statute (Fla. Stat. § 95.10) does not automatically require borrowing another state’s limitations period merely because the injury occurred outside Florida.
- In tort cases involving limitations questions, Florida applies a “significant relationship” analysis (as recognized in Florida conflicts law), rather than a rigid place-of-injury rule.
- When Florida has the more significant relationship to the parties and occurrence—such as when both parties are Florida residents and key consequences are centered in Florida—Florida’s statute of limitations applies.
- The borrowing statute’s anti-forum-shopping purpose is not served by barring a Florida resident’s suit against another Florida resident in Florida when Florida is the primary locus of the parties’ relationship and effects.

## Conclusion

The court held that Florida’s borrowing statute must be applied through a significant-relationship conflicts analysis, and because Florida had the stronger connection to this dispute between Florida residents, Florida’s four-year limitations period applied and the action could proceed.


Mezroub v. Capella, 702 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1997)