93 F.3d 746 (11th Cir. 1996), 93-3555, Mosher v. Speedstar Div. of AMCA Intern., Inc.
|Citation:||93 F.3d 746|
|Party Name:||Robert C. MOSHER; Margaret M. Mosher, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SPEEDSTAR DIVISION OF AMCA INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Speedstar Division of Koehring Company; Koehring Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||August 30, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
Donald E. Pervis, Bradenton, FL, John P. Graves, Jr., John P. Graves, Jr. Chartered, Sarasota, FL, for appellants.
Patrick H. Dickinson, Dickinson & Gibbons, P.A., Kimberly Carlton Bonner, Sarasota, FL, for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges. [*]
DUBINA, Circuit Judge:
In this diversity action, Robert C. Mosher and Margaret M. Mosher (collectively "Mosher") appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their products liability claim based on the Florida products liability statute of repose, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.031(2) (West 1982) (repealed as amended by Laws 1986), in favor of Speedstar Division of AMCA International, Inc. and Koehring Company (collectively "Speedstar"). Because the issues presented by this appeal involved questions of state law implicating substantial public policy concerns and because there appeared to be conflicting controlling precedents in the divisions of the Florida courts that were dispositive of these issues, we certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:
(1) After the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Acosta, 612 So.2d 1361 (Fla.1992), does the "reliance exception" recognized in Frazier v. Baker Material Handling, Inc., 559 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1990), still operate to preserve products liability claims that accrued during the statute of repose's period of unconstitutionality?
(2) If the "reliance exception" is still viable, could Mosher have justifiably relied on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980)?
The Supreme Court of Florida has now answered both questions in the affirmative. Mosher v. Speedstar Division of AMCA Int'l, Inc., 675 So.2d 918 (Fla.1996).
In light of the Supreme Court of Florida's opinion, attached hereto as an appendix, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Speedstar and against Mosher and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court of Florida's opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERT C. MOSHER and MARGARET M. MOSHER, Appellants,
SPEEDSTAR DIVISION OF AMCA INTERNATIONAL, INC., etc., et
[June 27, 1996]
Supreme Court of Florida
Donald E. Pervis of Donald E. Pervis & Associates, P.A., Sarasota, Florida; and John P. Graves, Jr. of the Law Offices of John P. Graves, Jr., Chartered, Sarasota, for Appellants.
Richard R. Garland of Dickinson & Gibbons, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellees.
Pursuant to section 25.031, Florida Statutes (1995), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.150, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has certified to this Court certain questions concerning application of Florida's former statute of repose. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(6) of the Florida Constitution.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP