BELLE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
B.C.E. DEVELOPMENT, 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.
Belle Plaza Condominium Association appealed the dismissal of its breach of warranty claim and summary judgment against its tort claims arising from an allegedly defective condominium conversion in 1980. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the developer properly disclaimed warranties and that tort claims for purely economic loss cannot proceed without property damage or personal injury.
The court held that the developer did not breach any express warranty because the prospectus clearly contained no express warranty and properly disclaimed all warranties through bold and conspicuous language. The court also held that tort claims for purely economic loss, without accompanying personal injury or property damage other than to the defective property itself, cannot proceed.
[1] A developer may disclaim all express or implied warranties through a bold and conspicuous disclaimer.
[2] Claims for purely economic loss, without allegations of personal injury or damage to other property, are generally barred in tort.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it is clear from a review of the Complaint and exhibits attached thereto that there was no express warranty granted by B.C.E. to the Association. Moreover, it is equally clear that B.C.E. properly disclaimed by a bold and conspicuous disclaimer any and all express or implied warranties.”
Establishes the basis for dismissing the warranty claim: no express warranty existed and the developer properly disclaimed warranties through bold print language.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, prior to the Roth Act's effective date, an apartment complex was converted to a condominium. Units were sold pursuant to a prospectus and dec…
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 Disclaimer Of Warranties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves an apartment conversion to a condominium in 1980, prior to the effective date of the Roth Act.1
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of its claim of breach of express warranties by developer and the trial court’s order of summary judgment in appellee’s favor as to appellant’s claims of negligent construction and negligent performance by developer of statutory duty to disclose.
The units were sold pursuant to a prospectus and declaration of condominium which was attached as an exhibit to the prospectus. The prospectus contained a disclaimer of warranties. The prospectus had attached to it as an exhibit, a statement of conversion conditions with disclaimers in bold print. When unit owners took control ,of the condominium association they allege they discovered that the condition of the building was not, in fact, as represented and that the conversion report was an inaccurate description of the property. There was a bold print disclaimer in the statement of conversion conditions, as well as references in the prospectus and the purchase agreement to the fact that the property was being sold “as is.”
The trial court correctly dismissed the Association’s claim for breach of express warranty set out in Count I of the Amended Complaint because it is clear from a review of the Complaint and exhibits attached thereto that there was no express warranty granted by B.C.E. to the Association. Moreover, it is equally clear that B.C.E. properly disclaimed by a bold and conspicuous disclaimer any and all express or implied warranties. See Meeting Makers, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 513 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Rudy’s Glass Construction Company v. E.F. Johnson Company, 404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
The trial court correctly granted B.C.E.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Association’s tort claims set out in Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint because the Association sought to recover for purely economic loss and no damages were sought for personal injury or damage to property other than the defective property itself. See AFM Corporation v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1987); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1987); GAF Corporation v. Zack Company, 445 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Therefore the orders under review are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. Roth Act, Florida Statutes Sections 718.604-718.622 (1980 Supp.)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rich Elecs., Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 548 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…re AFM Corporation v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1987); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1987); Belle Plaza Condominium Association, Inc. v. B.C.E. Development, Inc., 543 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); GAF Corporation v. Zack Company, 445 So. 2d 350 (Fla.3d DCA 1984). Therefore, the summary judgment under review is affirmed. Affirmed. . "For the reasons given, we conclude that the tariff will limit the phone company’s li…
-
Begley v. Truly Nolan Exterminating, Inc., 573 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ermore, it is well established that a plaintiff cannot recover lost profit damages in a strict liability claim. See Florida Power and Light v. Westinghouse Electric, 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1987); Belle Plaza Condominium Assn. Inc. v. B.C.E. Dev., Inc., 543 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); GAF Corp. v. Zack Co., 445 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Therefore, the summary judgment under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
BAY Garden Manor Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. 1250 W. Ave. Corp., 588 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Casa Clara Condominium Ass’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 588 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Belle Plaza Condominium Ass’n v. B.C.E. Dev., Inc., 543 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).…
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
- AFM Corp. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1987)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1987)
- GAF Corp. v. The Zack Co., 445 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. Benson Elec., Inc., 404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Meeting Makers, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 513 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)