Comptech Intern., Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd.
1999 WL 983857, 753 So. 2d 1219 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The judicially created economic loss rule does not bar a statutory cause of action, particularly when the statute expressly provides that its remedies are available notwithstanding any other remedies. Additionally, property that is not an integral part of the product or service bargained for in a contract constitutes 'other property' for which damages are recoverable in tort.
Facts:
- Comptech International, Inc. (Comptech) leased a warehouse from Milam Commerce Park, Ltd. (Milam) for its computer business.
- Comptech used the warehouse to store its computer inventory.
- The parties renewed the lease with a provision requiring Milam to renovate the warehouse and create office space for Comptech.
- Comptech continued to store its computers in the warehouse during the renovations.
- Milam hired a contractor whose renovation work was performed negligently, causing damage to Comptech's computers.
- Milam also failed to obtain the required building permits for the renovation project.
Procedural Posture:
- Comptech International, Inc. sued Milam Commerce Park, Ltd. in a Florida trial court for, among other things, negligent construction and violation of section 553.84, Florida Statutes.
- The case was appealed to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
- The Third District Court of Appeal held that Comptech's negligence and statutory claims were barred by the economic loss rule.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review because the Third District's decision expressly and directly conflicted with a decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal in a similar case, Stallings v. Kennedy Electric, Inc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the economic loss rule bar a statutory cause of action for damages resulting from a violation of the State Minimum Building Codes, as provided by section 553.84, Florida Statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Quince
No, the economic loss rule does not bar the statutory cause of action. The judicially created economic loss rule cannot abrogate a statutory cause of action created by the legislature. The plain language of section 553.84, stating that the civil action is available 'notwithstanding any other remedies available,' demonstrates a clear legislative intent to create a cause of action separate from common law remedies. For courts to use a judicial policy to limit or eliminate such a legislative enactment would violate separation of powers principles. Furthermore, the computers damaged during the renovation qualify as 'other property' under the exception to the economic loss rule. The 'product' Comptech purchased was the renovation service, not the computers; the computers were not an integral part of the contract's subject matter and thus damage to them is recoverable in tort.
Concurring - Justice Wells
I concur with the majority's well-reasoned analysis. I write separately to reiterate my previously expressed view that the application of the economic loss rule should be clarified and expressly limited to product liability claims. To achieve this clarity, the Court should recede from its prior decision in AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell, which improperly extended the rule to service contracts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtailed the expansive application of the economic loss rule in Florida by establishing that the doctrine cannot nullify a statutory cause of action. It firmly establishes the supremacy of legislative enactments over judicially created common law doctrines, reinforcing the separation of powers. By clarifying that property incidental to a service contract can be considered 'other property,' the ruling also narrows the rule's application in non-products liability contexts. This provides greater protection for individuals and businesses whose property is damaged during the performance of a service, preventing them from being left with only contractual remedies which may be inadequate.
