 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Turbomeca11/2/2005
cident and Turbomeca was 25% at fault. It awarded French Aircraft $746,250 in damages and $847,204 in interest. The panel did not award arbitration costs.
Turbomeca moved to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court then confirmed the arbitration award and entered final judgment, but retained jurisdiction for the purpose of entering additional orders, including "orders related to the taxation of costs." A hearing was conducted on French Aircraft's amended motion to tax costs and the trial court entered a cost judgment awarding French Aircraft $54,000 in costs incurred during the arbitration proceeding. Turbomeca timely appealed the orders.
Although Turbomeca raises several issues as to the final judgment, we address only two based upon our conclusion that the remainder lack merit. Turbomeca argues, and we agree, that the award for damages for the loss of the helicopter is barred by the economic loss rule. This case is controlled by the holding in Indemnity Ins. Co. v. American Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532, 542 (Fla. 2004), that "a manufacturer or distributor in a commercial relationship has no duty beyond that arising from its contract to prevent a product from malfunctioning or damaging itself." In this case, French Aircraft has suffered a purely economic loss due to what it alleges is a defective product. It cannot recover for this loss under tort theories. " manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either negligence or strict product-liability to prevent a product from injuring itself." Id. at 540 (citing E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 871 (1986)).
Contrary to French Aircraft's assertions, it cannot avoid the economic loss rule, as a matter of law, because French Aircraft has suffered no personal injury or damage to other property. Although the pilot and the two passengers were injured, French Aircraft has no claim against Turbomeca for any physical injuries to itself. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So. 2d 899, 900 (Fla. 1987)(manufacturer of goods cannot be held liable where plaintiff not injured by defect in goods). Physical injury to third parties is insufficient to satisfy this economic loss rule exception. French Aircraft does not stand in any relation to the injured parties to be able to assert their injuries to satisfy this requirement; the pilot and the passengers asserted their own claims for personal injuries. See Airport Rent-A-Car Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc., 660 So. 2d 628, 632 (Fla. 1995)(where purchaser has no claim for personal injury there can be no independent tort for economic loss)(citing AFM Corp. v. So. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1987)).
In addition, no other property was harmed. The airframe and engine are not two separate pieces of property - they are one product. Courts have refused to bifurcate products into parts where a component part harms or destroys the finished product. Casa Clara Condo. Ass'n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1993)(economic loss rule bars claim against concrete provider for building where there was no damage to anything other than building itself). In an analogous case, one court has held that a "helicopter and engine, along with the fitting, constitute a single product for purposes of the economic loss doctrine." Va. Sur. Co. v. Am. Eurocopter Corp., 955 F. Supp 1213, 1216 (D. Haw. 1996). " ince all but the very simplest machines have component parts, [a contrary] holding would require a finding of 'property damage' in virtually every case where a product damages itself." East River Steamship Corp., 476 U.S. at 867 (quoting No. Power & Eng'g Corp.
Page 1 2 3 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|