prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,386 Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. A Florida Corporation v. Prevost Car, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation

67 F.3d 901, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 28281, 1995 WL 601229

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: October 13, 1995
• Docket: 93-4015
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this case we certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:

(1) WHETHER, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE APPLIES TO NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT WHERE THE ONLY DAMAGES CLAIMED ARE TO THE PRODUCT ITSELF AND WHERE THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS TO HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE THEORY OF RECOVERY.

(2) WHETHER, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, A CAUSE OF ACTION OTHERWISE PRECLUDED BY THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE MAY BE MAIN TAINED IF THE DAMAGE TO THE PRODUCT IS CAUSED BY A SUDDEN CALAMITOUS EVENT.

(3) WHETHER, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, A CAUSE OF ACTION MAY EXIST OUTSIDE THE BAR OF THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE WHERE THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE A DUTY TO WARN WHICH AROSE FROM FACTS WHICH CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPANY AFTER THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND AFTER THE CONTRACT.

Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc., 18 F.3d 1555, 1559 (11th Cir.1994).

The Florida Supreme Court has answered the first question in the affirmative, and the second and third questions in the negative. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc., 660 So.2d 628 (Fla.1995). Based upon these answers, we conclude that Airport Rent-A-Car’s tort claims against Prevost, arising from the destruction of two passenger buses owned by Airport Rent-A-Car and manufactured by Prevost, are barred by Florida’s Economic Loss Rule. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Airport Rent-A-Car’s claims.

AFFIRMED.