Prahl v. United States Mineral Products Co.

636 So. 2d 116, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3394, 1994 WL 123666

Opinion

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is barred by the then-applicable products liability statute of repose, section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1975) (repealed Ch. 86-272, § 2, at 2020, Laws of Fla.).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.

1

. 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).