NINA DIAMOND, ADELE DIAMOND AND WILLIAM DIAMOND, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment dismissing their product liability action against a drug manufacturer for failure to comply with Florida's statute of limitations. The court affirmed, holding that product liability actions must be brought within 12 years of the product's delivery to the original purchaser, regardless of when the defect was discovered.
The court held that product liability actions must be brought within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to the original purchaser, regardless of when the defect in the product was discovered or should have been discovered. The action was properly barred by the statute of limitations.
[1] Product liability actions must be brought within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to the original purchaser, regardless of when the defect was…
[2] The statute of limitations for product liability actions begins to run from the date of delivery of the product, not from the date the injury or defect is discovered.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1977) clearly requires that product liability actions as in the instant case be brought within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to the original purchaser regardless of when the defect in the product should have been discovered.”
The court's statement of the controlling law establishing the absolute 12-year limitations period for product liability actions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring her pregnancy from July 1955 to April 1956, Adele Diamond was prescribed and ingested Stilbetin (DES), a drug manufactured by E.R. Squibb and S…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statute Of Limitations For Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs Nina Diamond and her parents, Adele and William Diamond, appeal a summary final judgment for the defendant drug manufacturer based upon the determination that their action for product liability is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Defendant, E. R. Squibb and Sons, Inc., manufactured a drug for pregnant women called “Stilbetin”, more commonly referred to as DES (diethylstilbestrol). During the period of her pregnancy with Nina from July 1955-April 1956, Adele was prescribed and ingested Stilbetin. Subsequently in May 1976 the Diamonds learned that Stilbe-tin was a cancer producing agent and females whose mothers had ingested the drug were developing cancerous or precancerous vaginal contamination as a result. Thereupon, the Diamonds in April 1977 filed the instant complaint for damages against Squibb on the grounds of negligence and strict liability. They alleged that (1) Squibb knew or should have known1 that Stilbetin was a defective and a cancer producing agent prior to the administration of the drug to Adele Diamond and (2) Nina has developed or will develop cancerous lesions. Squibb moved for summary judgment on the ground that this action was commenced well in excess of 12 years after the last date of delivery of the drug (i. e. April 1956) and, therefore, was barred .by the applicable statute of limitations, Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1977).2 After a hearing, summary judgment was entered for Squibb and the Diamonds appeal.
Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1977) clearly requires that product liability actions as in the instant case be brought within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to the original purchaser regardless of when the defect in the product should have been discovered. The present action being filed well after this 12-year period, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment for Squibb. See Bauld v. J. A. Jones Const. Co., 357 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1978).
Affirmed.
. by proper testing.
. Ҥ 95.031
LIMITATIONS
* * * * * *
“(2) Actions for products liability and fraud under subsection (3) of § 95.11 must be begun within the period prescribed in this chapter, with the period running from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, instead of running from any date prescribed elsewhere in subsection (3) of § 95.11, but in any event within twelve (12) years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser or the date of the commission of the alleged fraud, regardless of the date the defect in the product or the fraud was or should have been discovered.” [Emphasis Supplied]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diamond v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 397 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1981)…BOYD, Justice. This cause is before the Court on petition for certiorari to review the decision in Diamond v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 366 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). Jurisdiction is predicated on conflict with Overland Construction Co. v. Sirmons, 369 So. 2d 572 (Fla.1979). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. (1972). We conclude that under the principle laid down in Overland, which was decided after…
-
Vilardebo v. Keene Corp., 431 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…mpany. . It should be noted that when the trial court granted summary judgment, it did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond v. E.R. Squibb and Sons, supra, quashing this court’s opinion in Diamond v. E.R. Squibb and Sons, 366 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
-
Sochanchak v. ELI Lilly & Co., 370 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Diamond v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 366 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bauld v. J. A. Jones Constr. Co., 357 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1978)