Prahl v. United States Mineral Products Co.
This text of 636 So. 2d 116 (Prahl v. United States Mineral Products Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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is barred by the then-applicable products liability statute of repose, section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1975) (repealed Ch. 86-272, § 2, at 2020, Laws of Fla.).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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
636 So. 2d 116, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3394, 1994 WL 123666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prahl-v-united-states-mineral-products-co-fladistctapp-1994.