GARY L. FISHMAN AND LINDA R. FISHMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERT BOLDT, AN INDIVIDUAL, ARTHUR V. STROCK, AN INDIVIDUAL, JOSEPH JACOBS AND ELLEN JACOBS, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, JOHN TAYLOR WALSH, D/B/A J.T. INSPECTIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORP.; AND DELRAY MARINE CONSTRUCTION CO., A FLORIDA CORP., 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 the economic loss rule barred recovery in tort for damages to a home caused by a defective seawall, as the home was the product purchased.
Appellants purchased a home with a pool and seawall. The seawall failed, damaging the pool, patio, and home. Appellants sued the builder for negligent…
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 Negligent Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case presents yet another application of the economic loss rule. The appellants purchased a home on a canal. The home included a pool and a seawall along the canal. Sometime after the purchase the seawall failed, causing damage to the pool, patio, and home. The appellants sued the appellee, Bert Boldt, as the original builder of the seawall, for negligent construction. The trial court entered summary judgment for Boldt based on Casa Clara Condominium Ass’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1244 (FIa.1993). We affirm.
The economic loss rule announced in Casa Clara prohibits recovery in tort where a product damages itself, causing economic loss, but does not cause personal injury or damage to any property other than itself. Id. at 1246. In order to determine the character of the loss, one must look to the product purchased by the plaintiff and not the product sold by the defendant. Id. at 1247. In the instant case, the “product” purchased by the appellants was the home with all of its component parts, including the seawall, pool, and patio. Therefore, the pool, patio, and home were not “other property” which would exclude the application of the economic loss rule. See also Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale Architects, Inc., 236 Va. 419, 374 S.E. 2d 55 (1988) (cited in Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1246, 1247 n. 8).
We find the appellants’ main authority, Southland Constr., Inc. v. Richeson Corp., 642 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), to be factually inapposite.
Affirmed.
WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comptech Int'l, Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd., 711 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…property in analyzing the applicability of the “other property” exception. See Jarmco, Inc. v. Polygard, Inc., 668 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 678 So. 2d 339 (Fla.), and decision approved by, 684 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1996); Fishman v. Boldt, 666 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 680 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1996); E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Finks Farms, Inc., 656 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Jarmco, the Fourth district held that a boat builder’s non-fraud claims against a resin seller for dam…
Authorities Cited
- CASA Clara Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1993)
- Southland Constr., Inc. v. The Richeson Corp., 642 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Davis v. State, 642 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)