ROBERT A. PRAHL, ET. AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES MINERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1994-04-12
No. 93-1401
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and GERSTEN, JJ.
636 So. 2d 116 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1994)


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment entered below is affirmed on the holding that plaintiffs-appellants’ “restitution” claim that the defendant asbestos manufacturer should be required to pay the costs of removing asbestos from the plaintiffs’ building1 is barred by the then-applicable products liability statute of repose, section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1975) (repealed Ch. 86-272, § 2, at 2020, Laws of Fla.). See Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 635 F.Supp. 45 (N.D.Fla.1986), aff'd, 835 F. 2d 1369 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988); Williams v. American Laundry Mach. Indus., 509 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed.

. See Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500 v. United States Gypsum Co., 788 F.Supp. 1173 (D.Kan.1992); Cheshire Medical Ctr. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 764 F.Supp. 213 (D.N.H.1991), vacated in part, 767 F.Supp. 396 (D.N.H.1991). But see Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 752 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.Fla.1990).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw