LARRY W. MATHIESON, LOUIS M. GONZALEZ AND GEOFFREY M. SWANN, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 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 dismissal of their complaint against General Motors alleging product defects in automobiles. The court affirmed dismissal of tort claims and the class action certification, but reversed and remanded the warranty counts to permit amendment, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of implied warranty through an agency theory.
The court held that: (1) the suit was inappropriate for class action where each plaintiff's statute of limitations defense would depend on different facts regarding their knowledge of the defect; (2) pure economic losses are not recoverable under negligence or strict liability tort theories; but (3) the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for breach of implied warranty on an agency theory, and the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the warranty counts with prejudice rather than permitting amendment.
[1] A suit is inappropriate for class action where the statute of limitations defense requires individualized factual inquiries into each plaintiff's awareness of a defect.
[2] Plaintiffs proposing to represent a class must demonstrate that they truly represent the purported class, and a claim is not representative if defenses depend on differen…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Plaintiffs who propose to represent a class are required to show that they truly represent the purported class.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for class action certification and the court's basis for rejecting class status when plaintiffs' defenses depend on individual facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLarry Mathieson, Louis Gonzalez, and Geoffrey Swann filed suit individually and on behalf of a class against General Motors, alleging economic losses …
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 Class Action Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is brought from a final judgment dismissing a complaint with prejudice.
We agree that where a claim for economic loss caused by a product defect is brought, and the plaintiffs’ response to a statute of limitations defense is that the unnamed plaintiffs were unaware of the defect within the time permitted for filing, the suit is inappropriate for a class action. Plaintiffs who propose to represent a class are required to show that they truly represent the purported class. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. discharged, 327 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1976). A claim is not representative where the defenses of each plaintiff would be dependent on different facts and circumstances. Costin v. Hargraves, 283 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
We also agree with the appellees that the plaintiffs’ counts for negligence and strict liability were properly dismissed since pure economic losses are not recoverable under tort theories. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1987); Affiliates for Evaluation & Therapy, Inc. v. Viasyn Corp., 500 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ pleadings adequately stated a cause of action for breach of implied warranty against the automobile manufacturer on a theory of agency sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Although the term agency is a conclusion of law rather than an allegation of fact, that conclusion appears here to be so elemental as to constitute a permissible pleading. See H. Trawick, Florida Practice and Procedure § 6-6 (1987) (citing Panama Realty, Inc. v. Robinson, 305 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 320 So. 2d 395 (Fla.1975)). As to the count for breach of express warranty, from the con-clusory allegation it appears that a cause of action can be stated and the complaint cured by amendment. The trial court, therefore, abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil’s Run, Ltd., 408 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The final judgment is affirmed as to the dismissal of the tort counts and insofar as it determines that the suit is not maintainable as a class action. That part of the final judgment that dismisses with prejudice the warranty actions is reversed and remanded to permit the named plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ar decisions as follows: Contrary to defendants’ assertions, dismissal is not required under Lance v. Wade, 457 So. 2d 1008 (Fla.1984), K.D. Lewis Enter. Corp., Inc. v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), Mathie-son v. General Motors Corp., 529 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), or [Cohen v.] Camino Sheridan[, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ]. These cases do not dictate affirmance; they merely demonstrate Florida’s aversion to class action treatment for breach of contract or fraud claims. Lanc…
-
Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…issues in a single trial. Contrary to defendants' assertions, dismissal is not required under Lance v. Wade, 457 So. 2d 1008 (Fla.1984), K.D. Lewis Enter. Corp., Inc. v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), Mathieson v. General Motors Corp., 529 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), or Camino Sheridan. These cases do not dictate affirmance; they merely demonstrate Florida’s aversion to class action treatment for breach of contract or fraud claims. Lance held that fraud on individual contracts for the purchas…
-
Terry L. Braun, P.A. v. Campbell, 827 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…, individual questions predominate over any common questions, thus making any class action trial unmanageable. See K.D. Lewis Enterprises Corporation v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), Mathiason [Mathieson] v. General Motors Corporation, 529 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). 1. Pascucci brings a loss of consortium claim as the husband of Plaintiff Hunt. Parties seeking class certification have the burden of pleading and proving each and every element required by rule 1.220.1 A class action may be c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1987)
- Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil's RUN, 408 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Costin v. Ansel L. Hargraves, 283 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Affiliates FOR Evaluation & Therapy, Inc. v. Viasyn Corp., 500 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Panama Realty, Inc. v. Robison, 305 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Wilson v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 327 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1976)
- Koenig v. Watsco, Inc., 320 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1975)
- LEE Cnty. Transit Auth. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 320 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1975)