Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.

886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Boyle v. Ford Motor Co.

    No. 22-11545 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2023)

    T.W.M. v. American Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995); Douse v. Boston Sci. Corp., 314 F.Supp.3d 1251, 1261-62 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (privity requirement satisfied by “substantial direct contacts” between buyer and manufacturer). In general, “[n]o privity exists, and a breach of warranty claim fails, where plaintiff did not purchase the product from the defendant.”

  2. Miller v. Ford Motor Co.

    620 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2022)   Cited 9 times

    "A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant." T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). However, Florida jurisprudence recognizes the third-party beneficiary exception.

  3. Morano v. BMW of North America, LLC

    928 F. Supp. 2d 826 (D.N.J. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Finding that Rule 9(b)'s heightened standard is met where plaintiff "points to specific marketing and advertising materials and specific language in the Maintenance Program and Warranty that would lead reasonable consumers" to be deceived

    See John W. Reis, The Magic of Privity in Express Product Warranty Claims: A Plaintiff's Perspective, 79 Fla. B.J. 50, 50 (2005). At least two federal court cases have lumped together implied and express warranty claims, stating that that “[u]nder Florida law, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract to recover under theories of breach of express or implied warranties.” Fields v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1259 (N.D.Fla.2009); T.W.M. v. American Medical Sys., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla.1995) (same). They do so, however, without significant analysis.

  4. Morano v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

    Civ. No. 2:12-CV-00606 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2013)

    At least two federal court cases have lumped together implied and express warranty claims, stating that that "[u]nder Florida law, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract to recover under theories of breach of express or implied warranties." Fields v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1259 (N.D. Fla. 2009); T.W.M. v. American Medical Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (same). They do so, however, without significant analysis.