Indemnity Ins. Co. v. American Aviation
Citation | 891 So.2d 532 |
Decision Date | 23 December 2004 |
Docket Number | No. SC03-1601.,SC03-1601. |
Parties | INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. AMERICAN AVIATION, INC., Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Hugh C. Griffin and Gary Y. Leung of Lord, Bissell and Brook, LLP, Chicago, IL, and Michael P. Bruyere, Thomas J. Strueber and Jonathan R. Friedman of Lord, Bissell and Brook, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Appellant.
John M. Murray of Murray, Marin and Herman, P.A., Tampa, Florida and Carolyn A. Pickard of Murray, Marin and Herman, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Appellee.
Daniel S. Green of Ullman and Kurpiers, LLC, Tampa, FL and Tracy Raffles Gunn of Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A., Tampa, FL on behalf of the Florida Defense Lawyers' Association; and Richard A. Solomon of the Andersen Firm, P.C., Winter Park, FL on behalf of the Florida Concrete and Products Association, Inc., As Amici Curiae.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following five questions of Florida law that are determinative of a cause pending in that court and for which there appears to be no controlling precedent:
Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. America v. American Aviation, Inc., 344 F.3d 1136, 1148 (11th Cir.2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const. For purposes of this opinion, we combine and rephrase the first two certified questions as follows:
WHETHER THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE BARS A NEGLIGENCE ACTION TO RECOVER PURELY ECONOMIC LOSS IN A CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS NEITHER A MANUFACTURER NOR DISTRIBUTOR OF A PRODUCT AND THERE IS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT.
For the reasons that follow, we answer the rephrased question in the negative. We conclude that the "economic loss doctrine" or "economic loss rule" bars a negligence action to recover solely economic damages only in circumstances where the parties are either in contractual privity or the defendant is a manufacturer or distributor of a product, and no established exception to the application of the rule applies. Because the defendant in this case is neither a manufacturer nor distributor of a product, and the parties are not in privity of contract, this negligence action is not barred by the economic loss rule. The remaining certified questions concerning exceptions to the economic loss doctrine are moot in light of our determination that the economic loss rule does not apply to this case.
This case arises from lawsuits filed by Indemnity Insurance Company of North America ("Indemnity") and Profile Aviation Services, Inc. ("Profile") against American Aviation, Inc. ("American") for damages to Profile's aircraft allegedly caused by negligent maintenance and inspection of the aircraft's landing gear. The specific claim of negligence was premised on the fact that the landing gear did not extend because American had installed the lower thrust bearing of the right main actuator backwards.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed Indemnity's and Profile's tort claims, finding them barred by Florida's economic loss rule. Indemnity and Profile appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In certifying the five questions to this Court, the Eleventh Circuit summarized the pertinent facts as follows:
American Aviation, 344 F.3d at 1137-38 (citations and footnotes omitted).
The federal district court dismissed the tort claims with prejudice, but granted ten days to amend the breach of warranty claim to allege that Profile was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between American and the Aircraft's prior owner. Profile could not in good faith amend its complaint to allege intended third-party beneficiary status. Thus, both Profile and Infinity appealed only the dismissal of the tort claims to the Eleventh Circuit. Having doubt as to the correct application of Florida law under the facts of this case, the Eleventh Circuit certified the five questions of law to this Court.
The economic loss rule is a judicially created doctrine that sets forth the circumstances under which a tort action is prohibited if the only damages suffered are economic losses.1 However, because there has been much confusion about the scope of this doctrine, it is important to review its legal underpinnings. In this state, the economic loss rule has been applied in two different circumstances. The first is when the parties are in contractual privity and one party seeks to recover damages in tort for matters arising from the contract. The second is when there is a defect in a product that causes damage to the product but causes no personal injury or damage to other property.
The prohibition against tort actions to recover solely economic damages for those in contractual privity is designed to prevent parties to a contract from circumventing the allocation of losses set forth in the contract by bringing an action for economic loss in tort. See, e.g., Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So.2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
(). Underlying this rule is the assumption that the parties to a contract have allocated the economic risks of nonperformance through the bargaining process. A party to a contract who attempts to circumvent the contractual agreement by making a claim for economic loss in tort is, in effect, seeking to obtain a better bargain than originally made. Thus, when the parties are in privity, contract principles are generally more appropriate for determining remedies for consequential damages that the parties have, or could have, addressed through their contractual agreement. Accordingly, courts have held that a tort action is barred where a defendant has not committed a breach of duty apart from a breach of contract. See,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Connor v. Ford Motor Co.
...Fla. 2013) (citing Tiara , 110 So. 3d at 403-407 ). The Court then explained its attempt in Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. American Aviation, Inc. , 891 So. 2d 532 (Fl. 2004), to retract its "unprincipled extension of the rule" and limit it to its "original rationale and intent......
-
Alejandre v. Bull
...Lumber & Cedar Co. v. PPG Indus., Inc., 223 F.3d 873, 884-87 (8th Cir.2000); Rich Prods., 66 F.Supp.2d at 977; Indem. Ins. Co. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So.2d 532, 537 (Fla.2004). We need not address the question whether any or all fraudulent representation claims should be foreclosed by t......
-
Bank of Am., N. A. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...circumstances under which a tort action is prohibited if the only damages suffered are economic losses.” Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So.2d 532, 536 (Fla.2004). One of the circumstances in which the economic loss doctrine applies is “when the parties are in contractu......
-
David v. Hett
...the circumstances under which a tort action is prohibited if the only damages suffered are economic losses.” Indemnity Ins. Co. v. American Aviation, 891 So.2d 532, 536 (Fla.2004). Much is written in the nation's caselaw, scholarly journals, and other secondary sources about the economic lo......
-
Floridas Economic Loss Rule Comes Full Circle In 'Tiara Condominium Association v. Marsh & McLennan'
...which a tort action is prohibited if the only damages suffered are economic losses. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So.2d 532, 536 (Fla.2004). Despite its origin from products liability claims, the rule expanded to preclude claims where parties were in contractual privi......
-
Supreme Court Of Florida Holds That Economic Loss Doctrine Applies Only To Product Liability Cases
...prevent a product from injuring itself." See also Slip. Op. at 13 (describing holdings in Indem Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2004), and Casa Clara Condominium Ass'n Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Notwithstanding its origins,......
-
It's The End of the Economic Loss Rule As We Know It and Plaintiffs Feel Fine!
...International, Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd., 753 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 1999), and Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So.2d 532 (Fla. 2004). The Court concluded its opinion by noting that it had, in prior opinions, "clearly expressed its desire to return the economic loss r......
-
Florida's Economic Loss Rule: No Tort Claim For Damage To Product Only
...economic loss rule as it applies to products liability claims in Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. American Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2004). The Court held that a manufacturer has no duty beyond that arising from contract to prevent a product from malfunctioning or ......
-
Understanding and applying Florida's flexibility theory of damages.
...intended to limit product liability actions, not bar common law causes of action); Indem. Ins. Co. of N. America v. Amer. Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2004) (rule does not bar actions based on torts which are independent from breaches of (40) See, e.g., FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.110(g); Rau......
-
Post-Tiara: Contracts Are Still King.
...La Gorce Country Club, Inc., 35 So. 3d 1033, 1038-39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (geologist). (33) Indem. Ins. Co. of N.Am. v.Am.Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532, 536-37 (Fla. (34) Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP, No. 19-14050-CIV-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD, 2019 WL 34285......
-
Tort and contract actions: strange bedfellows no more in the wake of Tiara Condominium.
...Supreme Court unanimously reined in the economic loss rule in Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. American Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532, 542-43 (2004), confining its application to just two scenarios: 1) when parties have negotiated remedies in a contract, and 2) when a defect......
-
Are consequential damages recoverable from title insurers or has there been "a change in policy"?
...St. Lucie County, Inc., 557 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 1990). (9) See, e.g., Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. American Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532, 536 (Fla. 2004); Behrman v Allstate Life Ins. Co., 388 F. Supp. 2d1346, 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2005), aff'd 2006 WL 561207 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpub......