Fishman v. Boldt

Citation666 So.2d 273
Decision Date17 January 1996
Docket NumberNo. 94-2820,94-2820
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly D187 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.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

William A. Fragetta of Sachs & Sax, P.A., Boca Raton, for Appellants.

John H. Richards of Cooney, Haliczer, Mattson, Lance, Blackburn, Pettis & Richards, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee-Bert Boldt.

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 (Fla.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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Comptech Intern., Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 1998
    ...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 Re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation. this Document Relates To All Cases. Mdl No. 2047.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • January 13, 2010
    ... ... the ELR. The Distributors also cite the ... following cases in support of their Motion: ... Fishman v. Boldt, 666 So.2d 273 (Fla.Dist ... Ct.App.1996), which held the ELR precluded tort recovery for damages caused ... by a defective seawall to a ... ...
  • Cooper v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Case No. 19-cv-07901-TSH
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • May 19, 2020
    ...part of an integrated fuel storage and dispensing system" caused by defects in a fuel pump piping component.); Fishman v. Boldt , 666 So. 2d 273, 274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (the product purchased by the plaintiff was a home with all its component parts, including the seawall, pool, and ......
  • Fishman v. Boldt
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • August 30, 1996
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Economic Loss Rule in Kansas and Its Impact on Construction Cases
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 74-6, June 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...interest that tort law traditionally protects"). 5. Northwest Arkansas Masonry , 29 Kan. App. 2d at 741-42; see also Fishman v. Boldt , 666 So.2d 273, 274 (Fla. App. 1996) (describing the economic loss rule as one that prohibits recovery in tort where a product damages itself or there is ec......
  • Economic loss rule: the "integral part" approach to the "other property" exception.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 76 No. 7, July 2002
    • July 1, 2002
    ...and, thus, did not injure `other property.'" (13) The "finished product" language became the basis for the holding in Fishman v. Boldt, 666 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), denying a homeowner's claim for damages to a pool, patio, and home caused by the collapse of a defective seawall. Despi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT