You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

Citations: 714 F.3d 1253; 2013 WL 1606345; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7583Docket: 09-11718

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; April 16, 2013; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves Tiara Condominium Association, Inc., which filed a lawsuit against Marsh McLennan Companies, Inc., and related entities following inadequate insurance coverage for hurricane damage. The primary legal issue centered on whether the economic loss rule barred tort claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against an insurance broker in a contractual relationship. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the Supreme Court of Florida to clarify the applicability of the economic loss rule. The Supreme Court of Florida held that the economic loss rule was confined to products liability cases and did not apply to insurance brokers, thereby allowing tort claims to proceed when the damages were purely economic. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment dismissing Tiara's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims and remanded the case for reconsideration. This ruling signifies a pivotal clarification in Florida law, delineating the boundaries of the economic loss rule, emphasizing its application solely to products liability, and allowing tort claims in professional service contexts when independent of contract breaches.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Economic Loss Rule

Application: The court reaffirmed that the economic loss rule is applicable only to products liability cases, restricting its application in other contexts, such as professional liability.

Reasoning: The court ruled that the economic loss rule does not apply, limiting its application to products liability cases, and thereby receding from prior inconsistent case law.

Contractual Privity and Tort Claims

Application: The decision emphasizes that tort claims must be independent of breach of contract claims, and the presence of contractual privity does not automatically bar tort actions.

Reasoning: The court reaffirmed that tort claims must be independent of breach of contract claims, as established in Lewis v. Guthartz, which requires a distinct tort for valid claims.

Economic Loss Rule and Insurance Brokers

Application: The Supreme Court of Florida clarified that the economic loss rule does not bar tort claims against insurance brokers when the damages sought are purely economic and the parties are in contractual privity.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court answered negatively, clarifying that the economic loss rule is limited to products liability cases.

Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims

Application: The negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the insurance broker were remanded for further proceedings, as the economic loss rule did not preclude these claims.

Reasoning: The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment regarding Tiara's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims and remanded those claims for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court of Florida's ruling.