Summary
affirming district court decision to apply the economic loss rule where, inter alia, the plaintiff "did not assert an ownership interest" in the other property damaged by the defective product
Summary of this case from Tindle Enterprises, Inc. v. Plastic Trends, Inc.Opinion
No. 93-4015
October 13, 1995
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
D.C. Docket No. 91-6653-CIV
Hugh T. Maloney, Gary S. Maisel, Patterson, Maloney Gardiner, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellant.
Shirley Jean McEachern, Bard D. Rockenbach, Daniel M. Bachi, Sellars, Supran, Cole, Marion Espy, P.A., W. Palm Beach, FL, for appellee.
Before KRAVITCH, ANDERSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
In this case we certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:
(1) WHETHER, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE APPLIES TO NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT WHERE THE ONLY DAMAGES CLAIMED ARE TO THE PRODUCT ITSELF AND WHERE THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS TO HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE THEORY OF RECOVERY.
(2) WHETHER, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, A CAUSE OF ACTION OTHERWISE PRECLUDED BY THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE MAY BE MAINTAINED IF THE DAMAGE TO THE PRODUCT IS CAUSED BY A SUDDEN CALAMITOUS EVENT.
(3) WHETHER, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, A CAUSE OF ACTION MAY EXIST OUTSIDE THE BAR OF THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE WHERE THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE A DUTY TO WARN WHICH AROSE FROM FACTS WHICH CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPANY AFTER THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND AFTER THE CONTRACT.
Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc., 18 F.3d 1555, 1559 (11th Cir. 1994).
The Florida Supreme Court has answered the first question in the affirmative, and the second and third questions in the negative. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc., No. 83,586, slip op. (Fla. June 15, 1995). Based upon these answers, we conclude that Airport Rent-A-Car's tort claims against Prevost, arising from the destruction of two passenger buses owned by Airport Rent-A-Car and manufactured by Prevost, are barred by Florida's Economic Loss Rule. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Airport Rent-A-Car's claims.
AFFIRMED.