In Florida, developers and contractors work under strict clocks. Section 95.11(3)(b), Florida Statutes, sets two firm deadlines for construction claims: a four-year statute of limitations and a seven-year statute of repose. Those timelines govern when an owner or condominium association may pursue claims for alleged defects. Once the repose period ends, the claim is barred regardless of when the problem surfaced.
Condominium law complicates that scheme. Section 718.124 delays the start of the limitation and repose periods on association claims until control of the board shifts from the developer to the unit owners. The logic is simple: a developer-controlled board cannot be expected to sue the developer. The practical effect is more sweeping. If turnover occurs late in the life of a project, the repose period may remain tolled for years, extending exposure far beyond the seven years that apply everywhere else.
The Legislature adopted that tolling rule in 2024 to address concerns that some developers could hold control long enough for the repose period to expire before turnover ever occurred. The amendment closed that gap but revived broader questions about fairness and predictability in the condominium market.
House Bill 255, filed for the 2026 session, attempts to restore balance. It keeps the turnover-based tolling for many association claims but creates a clear exception for claims based on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property. Put simply, condominium construction-defect claims would again follow the standard repose timetable even if turnover had not occurred.
The goal is uniformity. A single repose rule allows developers, contractors, lenders, and insurers to measure and price risk more reliably. Under HB 255, the repose period would begin running at the earliest of a temporary certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy or completion, or abandonment of the project. Seven years after that point, the claim would be barred regardless of the association’s transition status.
Supporters see the bill as a necessary correction. The 2024 amendment created two competing timelines—one for condominiums and another for every other project—leaving construction participants exposed to late claims from associations they never contracted with. Aligning condominium law with Section 95.11(3)(b) would return predictability to the field and give insurers and sureties firmer ground for setting premiums and reserves.
Owners and associations raise legitimate concerns. They argue that some defects, particularly those within exterior envelopes or structural systems, may not be visible until well after residents move in, and that a strict repose cutoff may prevent recovery for genuine issues. That point deserves attention, and the Legislature could address it by tightening the timeline for turnover or establishing more consistent transition procedures so associations gain control within a reasonable and predictable period.
Even within the current framework, owners are not without protection. Chapter 558’s pre-suit process and the discovery-based four-year statute of limitations give associations meaningful tools to pursue timely claims. The repose period is not designed to cut off viable cases; it is meant to provide closure in a system where financing, insurance, and project delivery depend on clear risk horizons.
Whether HB 255 moves forward remains uncertain. But its filing underscores the growing recognition that Florida’s construction and condominium sectors need a more predictable timeline. A balanced reform that preserves owners’ rights while restoring a uniform repose structure would support the state’s development economy on both sides of the equation.