### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Febru ary 8, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 02- 1482 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 00 85 0- CV-8 -T-1 7TGW INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMP ANY OF NORTH A MERC IA, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us AMERIC AN AVIATION, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 02- 1483 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00851 -CV -8-T -17TBM PROFI LE AVIATION SERVICES, INC ., Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us AMERIC AN AVIATION, INC., De fendant-Appellee.Honora ble Robert B . Propst, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Alabama , sitti ng by

desig nation. 2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 8, 200 5) Before AN DE RSO N and BIRCH , C ircuit Judg es, and PROP ST , D istrict Judg e. * PER CURI AM T he pr oc ed

ur al his tor

y , f ac ts and i ssu es in thi s c as e ar e sum m ar iz ed in our pr ev iou s op ini on i n w hic h w e ce rt if ie d di spos iti ve que sti ons of state law to the Supr em e Co ur t o f Fl or id a. Indemnity Insurance Company of North Ame rica v. Am erican Aviation, Inc. , 344 F
. 3d 1 136 (1 1thCi r. 200 3)
. W e ha ve r ec ei ve d th e
an swe r of th e Supr em e Co ur t o f Fl or id a. In de m nit y In sur anc e Co m

panyof No rth Am erica, e t. al. , v . A me rican Aviation, Inc. , 200 4 W L 297 3861 (Fla. 2004 ). W e cer tified five question s to the Suprem e Court of Florida. T he court
co m bin ed a nd r ep hr as ed

our f ir st tw o qu es tio ns t o r ea d a s f oll ow s: W HE TH ER

TH E E CON OMI C L OS S D OCT RIN E B ARS A NE GL IG EN CE AC TI ONTO RE COV ER PU RE LYEC ON OMI C LO SS IN ACA SE W HE RE TH E D EF EN DA NT IS N EI TH ER

A MANUFACTURER NOR DISTR IBUTOR OF A PRODUCT AND3 THERE IS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT. Id

. a t *1
. The c ourt then answered the r ephrased question in the negative. T he court sta te d: W e co nc lud e tha t the "e co nom ic los s do ctri ne " o r "e co nom ic los s

rule" bars a negligence action to recover solely econom ic dam ages onlyin circum stances wher e the parties ar e either in contrac tual pr ivi ty or the de fe ndant i s am anuf ac tur er or dis tr ibu tor

of apr oduc t, an d no e sta

bli she d e xc ep tio n to the appl ic at ionof the r ule appl ie s. Be ca use the de fe ndant i n th is c as e is n ei the r a m anuf ac tur er nor dis tr ibu tor

of apr oduc t, a nd the part ie s are not in pr ivi ty of c ontra ct , thi s ne gli ge nc e ac tio n is not barr ed by the e co nom ic los s r

ule
. T he re m ai nin g c er

tif ie d qu es tio ns c onc er

nin g e xc ep tio ns t o th e ec onom ic los s do ctri ne a re m oot

in lig ht o f our

de te rm ina tio n th at

the e co nom ic loss rule does n ot applyto this case. Id

. T he a nsw er

of the S upr em e Co urt of

F lor ida be ing inc onsi ste nt w iththe j udgm en ts o f the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ing the tor t c la im s, w e re ve rs e as to tho se cl ai m s and r em an d th e ca se s f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on
an d th e opi nio n of

the S upr em e Co urt of

F lor ida
. T he re ha s be enno a ppe al a s to the dis m iss al of

the br ea chof

w ar ranty c la im s and w e af

fi rm the j udgm en ts a s to th os e cl ai m s. AFFIR MED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED