Case ID: so2d_636/html/0116-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert A. PRAHL, et. al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES MINERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
    No. 93-1401.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 12, 1994.
    Certification Denied May 24, 1994.
    Roy Wasson, Miami, for appellants.
    Bedell Dittmar DeVault & Pillans, Timothy J. Corrigan and Allan F. Brooke, II, Jacksonville, for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and GERSTEN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment entered below is affirmed on the holding that plaintiffs-appellants’ “restitution” claim that the defendant asbestos manufacturer should be required to pay the costs of removing asbestos from the plaintiffs’ building is barred by the then-applicable products liability statute of repose, section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1975) (repealed Ch. 86-272, § 2, at 2020, Laws of Fla.). See Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 635 F.Supp. 45 (N.D.Fla.1986), aff'd, 835 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988); Williams v. American Laundry Mach. Indus., 509 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 881 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed. 
      
      . See Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500 v. United States Gypsum Co., 788 F.Supp. 1173 (D.Kan.1992); Cheshire Medical Ctr. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 764 F.Supp. 213 (D.N.H.1991), vacated in part, 767 F.Supp. 396 (D.N.H.1991). But see Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 752 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.Fla.1990).