ELLER & COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GALAPAGOS LINE, S.A. AND ASSURANCEFORENINGEN GARD, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that contractual provisions limiting liability and disclaiming warranties are enforceable, precluding claims for breach of warranty and bailment, and that no misrepresentation was proven.
Eller, a stevedore, lost two tractor blades belonging to Galapagos after they were placed at the Port of Miami. The stevedoring agreement between Elle…
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 Enforceability Of Contract Clauses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Eller & Company, Inc. (Eller) appeals a final judgment finding it liable for the loss of two tractor blades pursuant to the claims of plaintiffs Galapagos Line, S.A. (Galapagos) and Assuranceforeningen Gard for misrepresentation, breach of warranty and breach of bailment.
The blades disappeared sometime after they had been placed at rest at the Port of Miami by Eller pursuant to a stevedoring agreement it had with Galapagos. The agreement contained various provisions limiting Eller’s liability. It provided Eller “shall not be liable, directly or indirectly, for loss, costs (including attorney’s fees), damage, injury, death or delay unless caused in whole or in part by negligence of [Eller], its employees or agents. Such liability shall be as a stevedore and not as a bailee.” The contract further provided that there were “no express or implied warranties.”
It is well settled that clauses in contracts limiting liability are valid and enforceable provided the intention to limit liability is made clear in the contract. See Elgie & Company v. S.S. “S.A. Nederburg” 599 F. 2d 1177 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1072, 100 S.Ct. 1016, 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); Insurance Company of North America v. Avis Rent-a-Car System, Inc., 348 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1977); Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
Since the agreement in the instant case specifically provided that there were no express or implied warranties and that Eller shall not be liable as a bailee, Galapagos and its insurer Assuranceforeningen Gard may not enforce a claim against Eller for either breach of warranty or breach of bailment for the loss of the blades. Further, we find no merit in Galapagos’ and its insurer’s misrepresentation claim as no evidence of any misrepresentation by Eller was presented to the trial court.
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosenberg v. Cape Coral Plumbing, Inc., 920 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…” Contract clauses that limit liability are valid and enforceable provided the intention to limit liability is made clear in the contract. Interfirst Fed. Sav. Bank v. Burke, 672 So. 2d 90, 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Eller & Co. v. Galapagos Line, S.A., 493 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). It is not clear from the record if the city water had been turned on and left on by Cape Coral Plumbing on the day it installed the toilet. In addition, it is not clear from the clause that Cape Coral Plumbing’s liability w…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Worsham Bros. Co., Inc., 563 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…otion was denied. It is well settled that courts of this state will uphold any limitation of remedy or liability provision in a contract as long as the limitation is mutual, unequivocal and reasonable. See Eller & Co., Inc. v. Galapagos Line, S.A., 493 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied sub nom, Assuranceforeningen Gard v. Eller & Co., Inc., 504 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1987); Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 413 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Here, the parties expressly agreed that upon termination of the ag…
-
Dynair Tech OF Fla., Inc. v. Cayman Airways Ltd., 558 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…d by Article 8(a)(4) of the same agreement which purports to limit the defendant’s liability to “gross negligence or willful misconduct;” and, thus, the subject exculpatory clause is of no force and effect. Eller & Co., Inc. v. Galapagos Line, S.A., 493 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1987); O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So. 2d 444, 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). (2) It was not error, as urged, to refuse to limit the plaintiff’s recovery to the cost of repairing the subject…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 348 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1977)
- Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Honicker v. Hendrie, 444 U.S. 1072 (U.S. 1980)
- S. African Marine Corp., Ltd. v. Elgie & Co., 444 U.S. 1072 (U.S. 1980)
- Elgie & Co. v. S. S. "S. A. Nederburg", 599 F.2d 1177 (2d Cir. 1979)