RICH ELECTRONICS, INC. AND RICH ELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A FOREIGN 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.
The court affirmed a summary judgment for Southern Bell, holding that claims for economic damages or lost profits are not recoverable in a negligence context. This ruling clarified that a prior decision did not create a cause of action for economic loss in negligence.
Economic damages or loss of profits are not recoverable in a negligence claim. While a utility tariff may limit liability for damages resulting from mere negligence, it does not apply if the utility fails to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent errors.
[1] Economic damages or loss of profits are not recoverable in a negligence context.
[2] A public utility tariff may not limit damages sounding in tort under certain circumstances.
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“Although the prior opinion in this matter, Rich Electronics, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, supra held that the public utility tariff may not limit damages sounding in tort under certain circumstances,1 any such recovery would have to be tempered by the normal restrictions of the law in this state.”
Establishes that while tariffs might not always limit tort damages, recovery is still subject to existing legal restrictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRich Electronics sued Southern Bell for damages. After a prior appeal, Southern Bell moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim wa…
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 Loss Of Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Subsequent to this court’s opinion and decision reported in Rich Electronics, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 523 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the matter recurred in the trial court upon Southern Bell’s motion for summary judgment setting forth that the plaintiff’s claim was limited to economic damages or loss of profits, and therefore such was not recoverable in a negligence context.
The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. This appeal ensued. Although the prior opinion in this matter, Rich Electronics, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, supra held that the public utility tariff may not limit damages sounding in tort under certain circumstances,1 any such recovery would have to be tempered by the normal restrictions of the law in this state. Such damages are limited to those relating to property or person and the prior opinion, Rich Electronics, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, supra, is not to be read as creating a cause of action sounding in negligence for economic loss or loss of profits. See and compare 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 liability when the phone company has put into effect and maintains reasonable procedures and safeguards to guard against errors and omissions in directory listings. Damages which result from a mere negligent failure to adhere to these procedures are subject to the tariffs limitation, but where, as here, it may be shown that there are no such procedures, there is no limitation of liability.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)
- Belle Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. B.C.E. Dev., Inc., 543 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Lopez, 523 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)