Villar v. Olazabal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Villar v. Olazabal

675 So. 2d 710, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1996 WL 347132

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 26, 1996·No. No. 95-1458·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint because as a matter of law the impact rule bars these causes of action and the facts of this case do not fall within the narrow exceptions to the impact rule. See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1995); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985); Sguros v. Biscayne Recreation Dev. Co., 528 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 880 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint because as a matter of law the impact rule bars these causes of action and the facts of this case do not fall within the narrow exceptions to the impact rule. See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1995); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985); Sguros v. Biscayne Recreation Dev. Co., 528 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 880 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed.

Villar v. Olazabal, 675 So. 2d 710, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1996 WL 347132 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

675 So. 2d 710 (Villar v. Olazabal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related