F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 4 , 2 003 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [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. 8 :0 2- cv -8 50 -T-1 7- TGW
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMP ANY OF NORTH A MERIC A, 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. 8:02-cv-851-T-17-T BM
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 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ppe al s f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the Middle District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 4, 200 3) Before AN DE RSO N and BIRCH , C ircuit Judg es, and PROP ST , D istrict Judg e. * PE R CU RIA M: CERTIFI CATION FROM THE UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EL EVENTH CIRC UIT TO TH E SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PURSUANT TO SECTION 25 .03 1 OF THE F LO R I D A STATUTE S AND RULE 9.1 50 OF THE FLORIDA RULE S OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORI DA AND ITS HO NORABLE JUST ICE S. In de m nity I nsur an ce Co m

pa ny of N orth A m er ic a (" In de m nity ") and P ro fi le A v i a t i o n S e rv i c e s , I n c . , ( " P r o f i l e " ) ap p e a l f

r o m t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e i r t o rt c la im s in their separate com

plaints agains t Am erican Aviation, Inc. ("A m e r i c a n" ) b y the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of Florida. The t ort claim s wer e dis m iss ed on the ba sis tha t F lor ida ' s e co nom ic los s rul e bar s the cl ai m s. I n de ci din g thi s ca se , w e m

ust de te rm ine w he the r the dis tr ic t co urt pr ope rl y int er pr et ed and ap pli ed Flor ida

law . B ec au se of

sub stanti al que sti ons co nc er nin g th e ap pr opr ia te Fl or ida law to be appl ie d inthi s c as e, w e ce rt if y tho se que sti on s of l awto the Suprem e Court of Florida and po stpon e any further consi deration of the consoli dated ap pe al s inthi s c as e unt il w e re ce ive a nsw er s f ro m tha t c ourt.Be cause these c laims were dismiss ed for failure to state a c laim, the appellants' fac tual 1 alleg ations must be taken as true

. 3 Sum m aryO

f A lle ge d F ac ts A nd A

ppl ic abl e R eg ula tio ns 1 T his a ct iona ri se s f

ro m the a lle ge dly

ne gli ge nt m ai nte na nc e an d inspe ct ionof
ana ir cr af t' s landi ng g ear by A m er ic an . A ll m ec ha nic s w ho w ork on ai rc ra ft m ust be FA A- certifie d. T o becom e cer tified, a m ec h an ic m

ust graduate from

a ce rtified
av ia tio n m ai nte na nc e te ch nic al sc hool (o r ha ve equiv al en t pra ct ic al e xpe ri en ce ) an d
m ust pass a written test on the constructio n and m aintenance of air craf t, the federal
re gul at ion s, a nd pro vis ion s go ve rn ing m ec ha nic s. T he y m ust a lso pa ss an or al a nd a p ract ic al sk il ls tes t. See 14 C

. F. R. §§ 6 5. 71, 65. 75, 65. 77, 65. 79. A F AA -cer

tified m echanic who perform s m aintenance o n an aircr aft, airfr am e,
en gin e, e tc
. , m

ust f oll owthe m et hods , te ch nique s, a nd p ra ct ic es pr es cr ibe d inthe ai rc ra ft ' s m ai nte na nc e m anua l an d pe rf orm the m ai nte na nc e in suc h am an ne r tha t the condi t i ono f

t he a i r c r a f

tw i l l b e a tl e a st

e qu a l t o i t s or i gi na l o r

p r op e r l y a l tered
co nd it io n. See 14 C

. F. R. § 43

. 13. Mo re ove r, w he n m ai nte na nc e has be enpe rf orm ed , a FA A -c er

tif ie d m ec ha nic m

ust giv e ap pr ova l be fo re the a ir cr af t, ai rfra m e, e tc
. is ret ur ne d to ser vi ce. See 14 C. F. R. §§ 43.3, 43.7, 43.13. Before returning the aircra ft to s er vic e, the ce rt if

ie d m ec ha nic m

ust al so m ak e an en tr

y int o the ai rc ra ft ' s lo gboo k
r e g a r d i n g t he in sp ect io n a nd m ai nt en an ce p erfo rm ed

. See 1 4 C

. F

. R

. § 4 3

. 5. Ac cording to app ellants, an air craf t owner r elies on these record s t o determ ine,
am ong o ther things , if

the required m aintenance has been perf orm ed, if the aircr aft
can be r et ur ne d to se rv ic e, a nd w he n th e ne xt m ai nte na nc e is s ch ed ule d.There appea rs to be some c onfusion on this point . The district cour t's opinion ( see 2 B a c kg ro un d) se e ms t o in dic a te that th e re wa s a c on tr a c t be tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s. Th e c omp la int s sug g est that the contra ct was be tween A merica n and a subsidiar

y of Profile, but not Profile itself. All parties see m to ag ree that Profile was not a party to the contra ct. Some of the maintena

nce w ork may

have be en per formed by

a subcontra ctor of A merica n. 3 4 O n or a ro und Nov em

be r 22, 199 6, A m er ic an ' s F A A -c er tif ie d m ec ha nic s, pur suant t o ac ontra ct

to w hic h a

ppe llants a re not

pa rt ie s, pe rf

orm ed the r equir ed

30- 2

m onth end play

m aintenance and inspection on the landin g gea r of a Be echcra ft K ing A ir 100 a ir cr af

t, r eg istra tio n N 924RM ( "Ai rcra ft" ). D ur ing the c our se of the ins pe ct iona nd r ep ai r, A m er ic an ' s m ec ha nic s r em ove d th e A ir cr af t' s rig ht m ai n la ndi ng g ear act ua to r an d lo w er thr ust be ar ing

. A ft er

c om ple tin g th e w ork, A m er ic an ' s m ec ha nic s c er tif ie d inthe A ir cr af

t' s lo gboo k th at

the w ork w as don e in
ac co rd an ce w iththe A ir cr af t' s m ai nte na nc e m anua l and F A A r eg ula tio ns. 3 Pr of ile pur ch as ed

the A ir cr af

t su bse que nt t o A m er ic an ' s N ove m be r 1996
m ai nte na nc e an d in spe ct ion

. Appell an ts c ont en d th at the y r ea sona bly r el ie d up on Am eri can 's re pr es en ta ti on s i n t he lo gb oo k c on cern in g t he Nov em be r 19 96 wor k. On May 14, 1999, the Air craf

t wa s severely dam aged when th e righ t m ain landing gear failed to extend during a landing. T he alleged cause of the fai led landing gear w as that the low er t h ru st bearing of the right m ain landing gear a ctuator wa s installed backwar ds. Appella n t s co ntend th at they could no t have discovered Am erican's al le ge d ne gli ge nc e pr ior

to the a cc ide nt. P roc ee din gs I

n D istric t C

ourt On May 10, 2 002, Indem

nity , which wa s the Airc raft' s insu rer, and Profile f iled
se pa ra te f our c ount c om pla int s inthe dis tr ic t c ourt. Appe llants soug ht to r ec ove r fo rI t appea rs from the br iefs that appe llants have not appe aled the dismissal of the br eac h of 4 war ranty claim. For

the purposes of

this certification, we consider the intere sts of I ndemnity and Profile to be the same. 5 negligence ( Count I) , ne gligence pe r se ( Co unt I I) , ne gli ge nt m isr ep re se nta tio n (C ount I II ), a nd b re ac h of

w ar ranty ( CountI V ). A m er ic anm ove d to dis m iss the
com plaints, arguing that Florida's econom ic loss rule barred the tort cla im s and that no breach of w arranty

action could be m aintained because of a lac k of p rivity betwee n ap pe llants an d Am eri can. I n ase ri es of or de rs , the dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d w ith A m er ic ana nd d ism iss ed both co m pla int s. T he ca se s w er e co nsol ida te d f or appe al

. 4 Issues T he iss ue s are a s f

oll ow s: (1 ) Whe the r the "e co nom ic los s" doc tr ine of F lor ida appl ie s to a lle ge d to rt s if the de fe ndant h as pr ovi de d se rv ic es to a pr oduc t r athe r than ha s so ld a pr oduc t. (2 ) Whe the r the "e co nom ic los s" doc tr ine of F lor ida appl ie s if

the re is no
co ntr ac tua l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e pla int if fs a nd the de fe ndant. (3 ) Whe the r the "e co nom ic los s" doc tr ine of Fl or ida ap pli es to the fa ct s of thi s
ca se w ithr eg ar d to da m ag e to the to ta l ai rcra ft a s op pose d to m er e da m ag e to the la ndi ng g ear unde r the "o the r pr ope rty " e xc ep tio n. (4 ) Whe the r the pr ovi din g of c er tif ie d m ec ha nic al se rv ic es f al ls unde r the
ca te gor y of the "pr of es sio na l se rv ic es " ex ce pti on to the "e co nom ic los s" doc tr ine of Fl or ida or und er som e re la te d se rv ic es e xc ep tio n. (5) Whether the neglig ent m isrepresentation claim in this case provid es an exception to th e "ec onom ic loss" doctrine of Florida.6

This court w ill recount the respective po sition s of t he parties without approval
or r ej ec tio n of

tho se pos iti ons. A

ppe lla nts '

P osi tio ns A. In Ge neral A ppe llants start w ith a his tor y of F lor ida ' s e co nom ic los s r ule

. "T he ' ec onom ic los s' r ule is a co urt- cr ea te d do ctri ne w hic h pr ohi bit s the ex te nsi on of tort r ec ove ry f or cases in which only a purchased product has b een dam aged and there is no personal inj ur y or da m ag e to ' oth er

pr ope rty , ' a nd the los se s or da m ag e ar e ec onom ic in nature." M

oran sai s v. H ea thm an, 744 So.2d 973 , 979 (Fla. 1999 ) (c itation o m itted). Appellants contend th at a review of the econom ic loss rule in the Florida courts over th e la st fif

te en y ears sh o w s a n ex pa ns io n a nd th en co nt ract io n o f th e ru le

. See Ch arl es R. W al ke r, Not e, M oran sai s v . H ea thm an a nd t

he F lor ida Eco nom ic L oss R ule : A tte m

pti ng t o L ea sh T

he T ort-E ati ng M onst er , 52 Fla. L. Rev. 769 (200 0). A c as e re lie d up on b y

the dis tr ic t cour

t, w hic h appe llants co nte nd is an e xa m ple
o f t h e " e x p a n s i v e " p e r i o d o f F l o r i d a ' s e c o n o m i c l o s s r u l e , is Ca sa C

lar a C ondo

. Ass oc ., In c. v. Ch ar le

y To pp in o & So ns , Inc ., 620 So.2d 124 4 (Fla. 1993 ). T he fac tual
an d pr oc ed

ur al pos tur e of

tha t c as e w as a s f

oll ow s: A ppare ntl y , som e of th e co nc re te sup pli ed by T oppi no c ont ai ne d ahig h co nte nt o f sa lt tha t c au se d th e re inf or ci ng ste el ins er

te d in the co nc re te to r

ust , whi ch , in tu rn , cau se d th e co nc ret e to crac k and br eakoff . The p et it io ne rs own co ndom ini um

uni ts and s in gle -f

am ily hom es bui lt w ith , a nd n owa lle ge dly dam aged by , T oppi no's concrete. In separa te actions the h o m eowner s sued num er ous de fen da nts a nd i nc lud ed c la im s a ga ins t T oppi no f or br ea chof co m m on l aw im

pli ed w ar ranty , pr oduc ts lia

bil ity , ne gli ge nc e, a nd v iol at ionof the bui ldi ng c ode

. T he c ir cu it co urt di sm iss ed a ll co unt s a ga ins t T oppi no i n ea chc as e. O n ap pe al the dis tr ic t co urt a ppl ie d th e ec onom ic los s r ule a nd h el d tha t, be ca

use no p er son w as inj ur ed an d no oth er

pr ope rty da m ag ed , the7

hom eowner s had no cause o f action against Toppino in tort. The dist rict court al so h el d th at

T oppi no, asup pli er , ha d no duty to com ply w iththe bui ldi ng code. Id

. a t 12 45 ( fo otn ote om itt ed ). T he ho m eo wne rs a rg ue d th at li m iti ng the m

to a contractual rem edy

against the concrete supplier was unfair because they

lacked pr ivi ty of co ntr ac t w ith the supp lie r. T he F lor ida S upr em e Co urt, by

a4- 3 vo te , he ld th at th e eco no m ic lo ss ru le ap pl ie d an d ba rred all th e o wne rs ' to rt c la im s. Id

. a t 12 47. T he co urt a lso r ej ec te d th e ar gum en t tha t the "o the r pr ope rty " e xc ep tio n to the r ule ap pli ed , hol din g th at

"[ t]he se ho m eo wne rs bought fi nis he d pr oduc ts— dw el lin gs— not the indiv idual com

ponent s of those dwel l i n g s. T hey bargained for the f

inish ed pr oduc ts, not the ir va ri ous co m pone nts
. T he co nc re te be cam e an int eg ra l part of the finished prod uct and, thus, did not in j ure ' other' property ." Id

. a t 12 47. A ppe llants poi nt t o th e dis se nt i n Ca sa C lar a, in w hich thre e j ustices reasoned tha t the e co nom ic los s r

ule
w orks w el l w he n th e los s is suf fe re d by one w ho i s pr ivy

to the c ontra ct a nd invo lves loss that wa s the subject m atter of the contract. It works a m ischief, however, wher e as in this instance the injured party is not priv y

to the contract but in j ury to third parties is reasonably foresee able. The condom inium owners he re suf fe re d m or e than the lo ss of c onc re te ; the y

suf fe re d th e los s of

the ir ho m es , a fo res eeab le co ns eq ue nc e o f fau lt y co nc ret e.... Whil e I ag re e w iththe m aj or ity opi nio n th at

parti es who h av e fr ee ly ba rg ai ne d a nd e nte re d ac ontra ct r el at ive to a pa rt ic ular subj ec t m at te r shou ld be bo un d b y

th e te rm s o f th atco nt ract in cl ud in g th e di st rib ut io n o f lo ss , I feel tha t the the oryis stret ch ed wh en it is use d to de nya c ause of ac tio n to an inn oc en t third party wh o the de fe ndan t kne w or should have kn ow n w ould be inj ure d bythe tor tio us c ondu ct
. T oppi no kne w tha t the co nc re te tha t wa s th e subj ec t m at te r of

the ba rg ai n be tween T oppi no and the ge ne ra l c ontra ct or w oul d be inc or

por at ed int o ho m es tha t w oul d be bou ght a nd oc cupie d by inn oc en t thir d part ie s. Id

. at 1249 ( e m

p h a s i s a d d e d )

. Ap p e l l a n t s a l s o c i t e th e o t h e r d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n,8

w ri tte n by

tw o j ust ic es , w hic h st at ed : [S] om e ap pli ca tio ns o f the e co nom ic los s do ctri ne m ay ha ve a cc ep ta

ble via bil ity

. Bu t sur el y it str et ch es r ea son to a ppl y the doc tr ine in thi s c ont ex t t o d e n y t h e s e h o meo w n e r s a n y re med y.

....

. . . Mo re ove r, I c an not

sub sc ri be to the m aj or ity ' s view tha t the de fe ct ive concrete has not dam aged "other property " in the form of t he houses' indi vidu al co m pone nts
. Id

. at 1248

. Af

ter Ca sa C

lar a, a court observed that the "econom ic loss rule is stated with ease but applied with great difficulty ." De lgad o v. J. W . Court esy P ontia c G

MCTr uc k, In c., 693 S o. 2d 6 02, 606 ( Fl a. D ist

. Ct

. App. 19 97 ) (c ita tio n om itt ed ). I n li ght of thi s di ff ic ulty , appe llants co nt en d, the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt be ga n e ff orts t o
re fi ne or r ed ef ine the r ule , w hic h it

a dm itt ed ha d be enap pl ie d "to si tua tio ns w el l bey ond o ur original intent ." M oran sai s, 744 S o. 2d a t 98 0. In M oran sai s, the f ac tua l and p ro ce dur al his tor y w as a s f oll ow s: In June 199 3, petitioner Philippe Moransais contracted to purchase a hom e in Lakeland, Florida, from Paul S. He athm an. Moransais also contracted w ith Br om

w el l & Carr ie r, I nc . ( BC I) , apr of es sio na l e ngi ne er ing c or

por at ion , to p er fo rm

ade ta ile d in spe ct ionof

the hom e an d to advis e him of the c ondi tio n of the hom e. T he c ontra ct w as sig ne d f

or the c or por at io n by o ne of

the re spon de nts , L en non D

. Jor da n, a s ch ie f of the c ivi l e ngi ne er ing div isi on. A lth oughthe c ontra ct

w as sig ne d by

Jor da n, it

did not na m e as pa rt ie s th e re spon de nts , Jor da n a nd L ar ry S au ls, w ho ac tua lly

pe rf orm ed the ins pe ct ionin June of 1993

. Mor an sa is al le ge s that he re lie d on the en gin ee rs ' ins pe ct iona nd advic e to p ur ch as e the hom e an d th at a ft er the pur ch as e he dis co ve re d de fe ct s in the hom e tha t sh oul d have be en , but w er e not, dis co ve re d in the e ngi ne er ing inspection , and that su ch defects r endered the hom e uninhabi table. Mor an sa is f

ile d a n a ct ion ag ai nst BC I fo r br ea chof c ontra ct a nd a ga ins t Jor da n and Sauls fo r pr of

es sio na l negl ige nc e as e ngi ne er s li ce nse d pu rs ua nt t o chapter 471, Florida Statutes (1993). The c om plaint alleged no bodil y

injury or pr ope rty da m ag e oth er

than th e undi sc los ed

a nd u nd et ec te d de fe ct s inthe hom e. On th e m otion of Jordan and Sauls, the tria l court dism issed the tort9

ac tio ns a ga ins t the tw o en gin ee rs w ith pr ej udi ce [b ec au se of the e co nom ic los s ru l e]. Id

. a t 97 4. T he F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d th e fo llo w ing tw o qu es tio ns: (1 ) Whe re apur ch as er o f a ho m e co ntr ac ts w itha n e ngi ne er ing c or por at ion , doe s t he p ur c ha se r

h a ve ac aus e o f

a c t i onf or p r of e ss i on a l m a l pr a c t i c e a ga i ns tan
em plo y ee of the e ngi ne er ing c or

por at ionw ho p er fo rm ed

the e ngi ne er ing se rv ic es ? (2 ) D oe s th e e c onom ic los s r ule ba r a cl ai m

f or pr of es sio na l m al pr ac tic e ag ai nst th e i n d i v i du a l e n g i n e e r

w h o p e r f

o rm e dt h e i n s p e c t i o n o f

t h e r e s i d e n c e w h e r e no pe rs ona l i nj ur

y or pr ope rty da m ag e re sul te d? Id

. a t 97 4. Ina nsw erin g th e fi rs t qu es tio n, the c ourt no te d th at e ngi ne er ing is a "p ro fes si on " as d efi ne d b y Flo rid a la w. See Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (defining professio nal
as "any voc at ionr equir ing a t a m ini m um a fo ur -y ear co lle ge de gr ee be fo re li ce nsi ng is pos sible in Florida"). T he court noted that un der prior ca s es an d the statuto ry
sc he m e, pr of

es sio na ls i n F lo ridaa re to be he ld r es pons ibl e fo r the ir ne gli ge nt a ct s. 744 So.2d at 977 -79. T hus, the court co n cl uded that th e hom eowner s could assert the ir c au se of a ct ion"d es pit e the la ck of adir ec t c ontra ct " b etw ee n th e pa rt ie s, a nd
ev en tho ugh the hom eo w ne rs ha d dire ct co ntr ac t re m ed ie s aga ins t the se lle r an d th e
en gi ne eri ng co m

pa ny tha t em

pl oyed t he in di vi du al en gi ne ers . Id

. a t 97 5, 984

. A s to the se co nd que sti on, the c ourt " ac know le dge [d ] th at our pr ior pr ono u n c e m e n t s o n t h e [ e c o n o m i c l o s s ] r u l e h a v e n o ta l w a y s b e e n c l e a r , a n d, accordingly , have bee n t h e s u b j ect of legitim ate cr iticism and com m entary ." Id

. at 980. S pe ci fi ca lly , the c ourt st at ed :10

U nf ortun at el y , how ev er , our

sub se que nt h old ing s have appe ar ed to ex pa nd the ap pli ca tio n of

the r ule be y ond its pr inc ipl ed or igi ns and h av e co ntr ibu te d to ap pli ca tio ns o f the r

ule by tr ia l and a

ppe lla te c ourts t o si tua tio ns w el l be y ond our or igi na l i nte nt. Id

. a t 98 1. A ft er

dis cu ssi ng p ri or

c as es , the c ourt w en t onto dis cu ss Ca sa C lar a, not ing tha t the de ci sio n " w as not unanim ous, es pe ci al ly as to our c ha ra ct er iz at ionof 'o t h er property .' " Id

. a t 98 1. T he c ou rt st a t e d t ha t " [ m ] or e r e c e nt l y t hi s Court has recognized the danger in an unprincipl ed extension of the rule, and we have declined to ext en d th e e c o n o m i c l o s s r u l e t o a c t i o n s b a s e do n f r au du l e n ti n du c e m e n ta nd negligent m isrepresentation." Id

. a t 981. T he co urt ulti m at el y he ld tha t the e co nom ic los s r ule did not pr ec lud e the c au se of

a ct iona nd n ote d: T oday , w e ag ai n e m

pha siz e tha t by

r ec ogni zi ng tha t the e co nom ic los s r ule m ay ha v e s o m e g enuine, but lim ited, value in our dam ages law , w e never int en de d to ba r w el l- es ta

bli she d co m

m on la w c au se s of

a ct ion , suc h a s th ose fo r ne gle ct

in pr ovi din g pro fe ssi ona l se rv ic es . Ra the r, the r ule w as pr im ar ily int en de d to li m it a ct ion s inthe pr oduc t l ia bil ity c ont ex t, a nd i ts a

ppl ic at ion shou ld generally

be lim ited to tho se contexts or situ ations wh ere the poli cy cons i de r a t i on s a r e s ub st a nt i a l l y i de nt i c a l t o t ho se u nd e r l y i ng t he p r oduct lia bil ity -ty pe a na ly sis

. W e he sit at e to s pe cu la te f urthe r on s itu atio ns not actua l l y be f

or e us . T he r

ul e , i n a ny c a se , sh ou l d no t be i nv ok e d to bar we ll-established causes of actions in tort, such as profe ssion al m alpractice

. Id

. a t 98 3 ( fo otn ote om itt ed ). Appe llants a lso ci te the co nc ur ri ng opini on, w ri tte n by two j ustices, w hich stated: "the econom ic loss rule s h o u l d b e lim ited to cases invo lving a product which dam ages itself by reason of a defect in the product." Id

. at 984. Appellants further cite the lone dissent, which stated that th e c as e was

" c o n t r o l l e d " b y Ca sa C

lar a and that the m aj ority

"has eff ectively overruled our rather
re ce nt d ec isi on i n Ca sa C lar a without say ing so ." Id

. a t 98 5. Le ss than four m onth s after M oran sai s, the Florida Suprem e Court decided11

Co mpt ech In t'l

, In c. v. Mil am Commer ce Pa rk , L t d., 753 S o. 2d 1 219 (1 999)

. T he fa ct s and p ro ce dur al his tor y of tha t c as e ar e as f

oll ow s: Co m pte chI nte rn at ion al , I nc . ( Co m pte ch ) w as le as ing w ar eh ouse spa ce f ro m Mi la m Co m m er ce P ar k, L td. ( Mi lam ). T he le as e w as re ne w ed w ithapr ovi sio n that Milam

would renovate the warehouse and crea te an office for Com ptech to u se f or it s ongoin g c om

put er bus ine ss. C om

pte chha d pr ev iou sly

use d th e w ar eh ouse to sto re it s c om put er s and w as to co nti nue usi ng the w ar eh ouse f or this pu rpos e both during and after the renovations. The renew al contract contained an ind em

ni t y clause stating th at Com ptech agreed to hold Milam harm less for "all cla im s of every kind" in cluding "dam aged m erchandise, equip m en t, f

ixt ur e or oth er pr ope rty , or

da m ag e to b usi ne ss o r for bus ine ss interruption , arising, directly or indirectly

out of, fr om

or on a ccount of such oc cu pa nc y a nd u se , or

r es ult ing fro m pr esen t or f utu re c ondi tio n or

sta te of repair ther eof. " Co m

pte ch , 711 So

. 2d at 1261

. T he ind em nity cl au se did

not specifically

state that Milam

would be held harm less for its own negligence. Mi la m hir ed a con tr ac tor to per fo rm the re nova tio ns; how ev er , the r en ova tio ns w er e pe rf orm ed ne gli ge ntl y , c au sin g dam ag e to the c om put er s lo ca ted in the w ar eh ouse. Ina ddi tio n, the landl or d f ai le d to obt ai n th e re qui re d bu ild ing pe rm its f or the bui ldi ng add it io n. C om pte chsue d M ilam

f or : ( 1) ne gli ge nt se le ct ionof

co nt ractor; ( 2) ne gli ge nt c onstru ct ion ; ( 3) vio la tio n of se ct ion 553. 84; a nd ( 4) r et

ur n of il le ga lly c oll ec te d r en t. T he T hir d D istri ct he ld the negligence claim s wer e barr ed by the econom ic l oss rule, despite the statut ory duty c re at ed by se ct ion553

. 84. T he c ourt a lso r ej ec te d C om pte ch ' s arg um en t that even if the econom ic loss rule applied, the com puters shou ld have been ex em pte d f ro m the r ule und er the "o the r pr ope rty " e xc ep tio n. Id

. a t 1221 -2 2. T he Fl or ida Su pr em e Co urt he ld tha t the e co nom ic los s r ule did not ap ply , a t l ea st i n part

be ca use the c as e inv olv ed a sta tut or ily cr ea te d c au se of a ct ion

. Id

. a t1 2 2 3

. Th e c o u rtt h e n c o n s i d e r e dwh e t h e r t h e c o mp u t e r s w e r e " o t h e r p r o p e rt y"
an d thus e xe m

pted from

the e co nom ic los s r

ule

. I n no tin g th e ru le ' s or igi n inthe
co nte xt o f pr oduc t l ia

bil ity , the c ourt st at ed

tha t " [h ] ad

the c ourts a dhe re d to the se
re qui re m en ts ( a pr oduc t, the pr oduc t dam ag ing it se lf, a nd e co nom ic los se s) , the confusion that has aboun ded in thi s area of th e law would have been m inim ized." Id

. a t1 2 2 3

- 2 4

. T h e c o u rtt h e n qu o t e de x t e n s i v e l y a n dap p r o v i n g l y f r o m M oran sai s. I d.They

also contend that prior to Mo ra ns ais and Comptech, the ec onomic loss rule, if applied 5 proper ly , was limited to product liability case s and ca ses involving a n actua l contrac t betwee n the parties. See V

alue House, I

nc. v. M CI Telecomm . Corp., 917 F.Supp. 5, 7 (D .D .C. 19 96 )( dis c us sin g F lor ida c a se s) ; se e als o Appellant B r. at 25-26.

12 at 122 4- 26. D isc uss ing the "o the r pr ope rty " r ule , the c ourt st at ed : This case is not a produ cts liabilityor sim ilar ca se. The subj ect of the c ontract be tw ee n th e par

tie s wa s no t a

pr oduc t bu t a

se rv ic e. T hus, thi s c as e doe s no t inv olv e "oth er prope rty , " a s th at te rm w as use d in East R iver

a nd F lor ida P ow er . T he term

is not trulyapplicable to a situation such as t h e o n e before us where the subject of the c ontract is a service. Id

. at 1226. T he court further stated t h at " [e ]v en under a Ca sa C lar a a na ly sis , the
com puters are ' other property ' and not subject to the econom ic loss rule." Id

. A s th e
co urt e xpl ai ne d: "T he ' pr oduc t' pur ch as ed by Co m pt ech w as the r en ova tio n of the
w ar eh ouse . T he c om

put er s pl ac ed

in the w ar eh ouse w er e not an int eg ra l part of the product and were therefore 'other property ' under th e Casa Clara rationale. " Id

. at 1226 -2 7. Appellants contend th at aft er M oran sai s a nd Co m

pte ch , F lor ida

appe lla te 5 courts have routinelyref

used to apply the econom ic loss rule to ca ses like this o ne, i.e. , a non-pr o d u ct l i ab ility

tort action betwee n parties who lack a contractual rel at io ns hi p. See Appellant Br. at 23-25 (other cases, em phasizing lack of contractual relationship ). H ere, the instant actions are not product liability actions. The parties did no t have a con t ra ctual relationship. Rather, appellants charge that Am erican
ne gli ge ntl y

r ep ai re d th e A ir cr af

t and n eg lig en tly

m isr ep re se nte d th e co ndi tio n of the la nd in g g ear. Ca sa C

lar a sho uld

ne ve r ap ply

to the se c as es , e spe ci al ly in lig ht o f the fa ct tha t i t ha s be ense ve re ly

c urta ile d a nd p er

ha ps e ve n ov er

ru le d. A ppe llants f

urthe r ar gue , e ve n if th e econ om ic los s r ule ge ne ra lly

appl ie s to13

ca se s of thi s ty

pe , the re ar e at le as t thr ee ex ce pti ons tha t w oul d ke ep it f ro m appl y ing in this particular c ase. B. O the r Pr ope rty Appellants contend th at the dam aged Air craf t wa s "other property" u n d er an
ec onom ic los s rul e exc ep tio n. T he la ndi ng gear, unl ike the c onc re te a t i ssu e in Ca sa Clara, w as not

a n " int eg ra l part " of the A ir cr af t. T he A ir cr af

t' s part s are ind ep en de nt
an d di sti nc t f

ro m one a nothe r. A lth oughthe y w ork to ge the r, each pa rt is
m anufactured and serviced separ ately from another (airf ram e, powerplant, propeller,
r a d i o , i n s t r

u m e n t s , a n da c c e s s o r i e s ) , a n dc o m p o n e n tp a rt s a r e i n t e r c h a n g e ab l e a nd in de pe nd en tl y

cert ifi ab le as t o a irwo rth in es s u nd er t he FAA reg ul at or y sch em e. See 1 4 C

. F

. R

. § § 4 3

. 3 , 4 3

. 7 , 1 4 5

. 5 9

. M o r e o v e r , t h i s c a s e d i f f e r s f r o m Ca sa C

lar a, wher e the c ourt f

ound tha t the hom eo w ne rs ha d no int er es t in the ind ivi dua l c om pone nts , but r athe r onl y

in the e nti re hom e. H er e, appe llants a re vit al ly int er es te d inkno w ing tha t e ac h a nd e ve ry

c om pone nt p ar

t w as ins pe ct ed , in pr ope r w orkin g or de r, a nd
s e rv i c e di n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h F A A r e g u l a t i o n s . L a s t l y , a l t h ough Comptech m ay not ha ve ove rr

ule d Ca sa C

lar a, it a t l ea st l im ite d Ca sa C

lar a to its f

ac ts. C. Profe ssion al Ser

vices A ppe llants arg ue tha t this c as e doe s no t f al l un de r the e co nom ic los s r ule b e c au s e i t i n v o l v e d " p r o f e s s i o n a l s e rv i c e s " a n d i s t h u s c o n t r o l l e db y M oran sai s. As not ed by the c ourt i n M

oran sai s, the econom ic loss r u l e wa s n o t intended "to bar
w el l- es ta bli she d c om

m on la w ca

use s of ac tio n, suc h as tho se f or ne gle ct in pr ovi din g pr of es sio na l se rv ic es . " 7 44 S o. 2d a t 98 3. A lth oughthe c ourt i n M oran sai s de al t w ith14

a sp eci fic st at ut or y

de fin it io n o f "p ro fes si on al ," th i s i s no t t he on ly defi ni ti on . See G arde n v . F

rie r, 602 S o. 2d 1 273 (F la

. 1992 ), in w hic h th e co urt st at ed : W e lim it the de fi nit ion of "pr of es sio na l" se t fo rth ab ove to the co nte xt o f the pr of es si on al m al pr act ic e st at ut e. It is no t our i nte nt t hat thi s de fin iti on b e appl ie d to any oth er re

fe re nc e to "prof

es sio nal s" or "pro fessi ons" el

se wh er e in th e F l o r i d a s ta tu te s, re gu la ti on s, o r ru le s, or i n c ourt c ases th at d

ea l w ith issues ot her than the statut e of limitations at issu e here. W e re cognize that the re m ay be oc ca sio ns w he n c ourts, le gis la tor s, r ule m ak ing au tho ri tie s, a nd oth er s m ayuse the ter ms "prof es sio n" and

"pro fessi onal " m ore bro adl

y or mo r e n a rr o w l y t h a n we d o h e r e t o d a y. Id

. a t 12 77 ( em

pha sis a dde d)

. T he c ourt f urthe r sta te d: W e do n ot d ee m

it pos sib le to de ve lop ac om pr eh en siv e lis t of

pr of es sio ns our se lve s. . . . So m e lic en sin g au tho ri tie s, fo r ex am ple , m er el y inc or

pora te by refe rence professional stand ards d eveloped by agencies o r organizations that are n ot ev en pa rt o f Fl or id a g ov ern m en t.... Id

. at 1 27 7 n . 9. Se e als o Bl ac k' s L aw Dict io na ry 122 6 ( 7the d. 1999 )( de fi nin g "pr of es sio na l" ). H er e, it is cl ear tha t FA A -c er tif ie d m ec ha nic s are hig hly

tr ai ne d a nd shou ld be deem ed professionals. O nly m echanics w ho are FA A- certifie d are a llowed to p er fo rm

the ty pe of w ork a t i ssu e in this cas e. The dis tr ic t c ourt' s su gge sti on,
re ly ing on Lo ch ra ne Eng 'g, Inc. v. W il li ng ha m Rea lg ro wt h Inv . Fun d, Lt d., 552 S o. 2d 228, 232 (Fla. Dist.C t.App.1989 ), that these m echanics sim ply provide "m anual services" flies in the fa ce of the F AAregulatory schem e. D

. N eg lig en t M isr ep re se nta tio n E xc ep tio n Fi na lly , appe llants c ont en d that the ne gli ge nt m isr ep re se nta tio n cla im doe s no t fa l l u n d e r t h e e c o n o m i c l o s s r

u l e b e c au s e A m e r i c a n i s i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f sup ply ing inf or m ation as recognized by

section 552 of the Restatem ent (Sec ond) of Torts, which pr ovi de s:15

O ne w ho, in th e cours e of his bus ine ss, pr of

es sio n or e m plo ym en t, or

in an y ot he r tr an sa ct io n i n wh i c h he ha s a p ecu ni ary in te res t, supp lies fa lse infor mation for the guid

ance of oth ers in their bu siness tr ansa ctions, is subj ect to l iab ili tyfor

pe cu nia rylos s ca use d to the m by the ir j ust ifi abl e re lia nc e upon th e i n f o rm ati on, if he f

ai ls t o e xe rc ise r ea sona

ble c ar e or

c om pe te nc e in obt ai nin g or

c om m uni ca tin g th e inf

orm at ion

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. Se e al

so Fir st Fla . Ban k, N.A. v. Max Mi tc he ll & Co ., 558 S o. 2d 9 (F la

. 1990 )( ad opt ing se ct ion 552)

. In re j ec tin g ap pe llants ' cl ai m fo r ne gli ge nt
m is rep res en ta tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d on P ala u I nt' l T rade rs, I nc . v . Na rc am Air cr af t, In c., 65 3 S o.2 d 4 12 (Fl a.Dis t.Ct .App .19 95 ). P ala u a lso inv olv ed asui t by a subs eque nt pur ch as er

of a n a ir cr af t, a nd, r el y ing on Ca sa C

lar a, the court held that the e co nom ic los s r

ule ba rr ed

a n a ct ion fo r ne gli ge nt i nspe ct ionw hic h c au se d th e pur ch as er to inc ur the e xpe nse of r ep ai ri ng the a ir cr af t. 653 S o. 2d a t 41 5- 18. Howev er, as no te d a bo ve , Ca sa C lar a is of

qu es tionable auth or ity , w hil e in M oran sai s the court stated that the rule shou ld be lim ited to "actions in the product lia bil ity c ont ex t. " 7 44 S o. 2d at 98 3. Mor eo ve r, in P ala u there w as no claim that "other property " wa s dam aged; rather, the plaintiff onlysough t the cost of the repairs that shou ld have been m ade. Also, the P ala u court's con clusion that a FA A- certifie d
m ec ha nic is "i n th e busi ne ss o f se rv ic ing a ir plane s . . . not in the busi ne ss o f supp ly ing inf orm at ion , " 6 33 S o. 2d at 41 8, ign or es the F A A r eg ula tor y sc he m e w he re by

r ep ai r sta tio ns, li ke A m er ic an ' s, r eg ularl y sup ply inf orm at ionin ana ir cr af

t' s lo gboo k. A ppe lle e' s P osi tio ns A. In Ge neral Am erican notes th at Florida's e conom ic loss rule "prohib its tort recovery when a product dam ages itself, causing ec onom ic loss, but does not ca use personal injury16

or dam age to any

property other than itself." Ca sa C lar a, 620 So.2d at 1246

. That
co ur t fu rth er st at ed th at "ec on om ic lo ss es are 'di sa pp oi nt edeco no m ic ex pe ct at io ns ,' which ar e protected by

contract law , r ather than tort l aw . This i s the basic differe nce betwee n contract law , w hich protects expectations , and tort law , which is determ ined by the duty owed to an injured party ." Id

. at 1246 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). T he c ourt a lso not ed : T he pur

pose of aduty in tort is to pr ote ct soc ie ty ' s int er es t in be ing fr ee f ro m ha rm a nd the co st of prote ct ing soc ie ty f ro m ha rm is bor ne by soc ie ty in ge ne ra l. C ontra ct

ua l du tie s, on the oth er

ha nd, co m e fr om

soc ie ty ' s in te re st i n the pe rf orm an ce of

pr om ise s. Whe n on ly

e co nom ic harm is inv olv ed , the que sti on b ec om es "w he the r the co nsum ing publ ic as a w hol e shou ld b ear the co st o f ec onom ic los se s su sta ine d by tho se w ho f

ai le d to ba rg ai n f

or a de qua te co nt ract rem ed ie s." Id

. at 1246-47 (citations om itted). I n rej ecting the plainti ff' s argum ent that an
ex ce pti on s houl d be c re at ed f or hom eo w ne rs , the c ourt st at ed : If a house causes econom ic disappo i n t m en t by not m eeting a purchaser' s expectations, the resulting failure to rece ive the benefit of the bargain is a core co nc er n of c ontra ct , not

tor t, law . T here are pr ote ct ion s f or hom eb uy er s, how ev er , suc h a s st at

uto ry w ar ranti es , the ge ne ra l w ar

ranty of ha bit ab ili ty , a nd the duty of se lle rs to dis cl ose de fe ct s, a s w el l a s th e ab ili ty o f pur ch as er s to inspect hou ses for defe cts. Coupl ed with hom ebuy ers' power to bargain over pr ic e, the se pr ote ct ion s m ust be vie w ed as suf

fi ci en t w he n c om

pa re d w iththe m isc hie f tha t c oul d be c au se d by a llo win g tort r ec ove ry

f or pur el y e co nom ic losses. Th er ef

o re, we again "hold con tract principles m ore appropriate than tort principles for recovering econom ic loss without an a c c om pany ing ph y sical in jury or pr op ert y da m ag e." If we he ld ot he rwis e, "co nt ract law wo ul d d ro wn in a se a o f to rt." Id

. at 1247 (citations and footno tes om itted). T his c as e, A m er ic ana rg ue s, f al ls square ly w ith in the hol din g a nd r at ion al e of Ca sa C lar a. He r e , t h e r e h a s b e e n n o p e r s o n a l i n ju ry a n dn o i n

ju ry t o o t h e r

p r o p e rt y. H er e, the pub lic sa fe ty

c onc er ns tha t su ppor t tort ac tio ns ar e not pr es en t be ca use onl y17

the a ir cr af

t su sta ine d dam ag e. T hus, the re is no r ea son to s pr ea d th e co st t o th e publ ic
as aw hol e. T his is cl earl y ac as e of

"d isa ppoi nte d e co nom ic e xpe ct at ion s, " and ap pe llants c oul d have pr ote ct ed the m se lve s inse ve ra l w ay s. T he y c oul d have
re qui re d ade ta ile d a nd i nde pe nde nt i nspe ct io n, ob ta ine d a ddi tio na l i nsur an ce , or
se cu re d aw ar

ranty und er a n in de pe nde nt w ar

rantysc he m e. A lso , f

ind ing f or ap pe ll an ts wou ld req ui re av ia ti on rep ai r st at io ns to be co m e g ua ran to rs to un kn own and rem ote third parties for routine m aintenance and logbo ok entries. P lus, Am erican
no te s, Ca sa C

lar a has not been ov erruled and re m ains the law in Florida. A m er ic ana lso c ont en ds tha t M oran sai s, re lie d upon by

appe llants , e xpl ic itl y ap pl ie d so le ly to pr of

es si on al ne gl ig en ce ca se s. See 744 So

. 2d at 974 ( sta te m en t of the iss ue be fo re the c ourt) , 983 -8 4 ( hol din g of the ca se ). H er e, ap pe llants ha ve not al le ge d pr of

es sio na l ne gli ge nc e ag ai nst A m er ic an . T he re is no ev ide nc e tha t an y of A m er ic an ' s m ec ha nic s e ar ne d " a fo ur -y ear co lle ge de gr ee be fo re " poss ibl e lic en sin g. Id

. a t 97 6. A m er ic ana lso c ont en ds tha t an y su ch cl ai m w oul d be ba rr ed

by the ap pl ic ab le st at ut e o f li m it at io ns . See A ppe lle e Br

. at 17 n. 3. Fi na lly , in con tr as t t o M oran sai s, appellants cannot allege that they hired Am erican or t hat Am erican knew tha t the y w er e int en din g to r el y

on the ir w ork. Even if M oran sai s did appl y , A m er ic anc ont en ds, appe llants ' tor t c la im s w oul d still be barred. Appellants have alleged that there w as a duty to service the A ircra ft's landing gear in a m anner such that it would be reasonably safe to use, that Am erican br ea ch ed tha t duty , tha t the br ea ch ca use d the inj ur

y , an d tha t the re w ere dam ag es . Cl earl y , Am eri can arg ue s, t hi s i s a p ro du ct s l ia bi li ty cas e u n de r Fl or id a la w. See18

Pri tc he tt v. E.I. Du Pon t De Ne mou rs & Co ., (M

. D

. Fl a. A pr il 12, 199 4) (" InF lor ida

. . . the e le m en ts o f the ne gli ge nc e ca use of action in a

pr oduc t l ia

bil ity c as e ar e: 1. The m anufacturer

m ust have a legal duty

to design and m anufacture a product
re as ona bly sa fe f or use ; 2

. T he m anuf

ac tur er m ust f ai l t o c om ply w iththa t du ty ; 3

. The plaintiff m

ust have an injury

that is legally

caused b y the m anufacturer 's brea ch of duty ; and 4. T he plaintiff m ust have suffered dam ages.")

. Mor eo ve r, the pol ic y

c onsi de ra tio ns a

ppl ic ab le in a pr oduc ts l ia bility c as e ap ply he re as w el l. A ppe llants w er e in the be st posi tio n to anti ci pa te pr obl em s and
co uld ha ve pr o t e c t e d

th e m s e l v e s w i thc o n tr a c t

l angua ge , w ar

ranti es , ne got ia tio ns, a nd additio nal insurance. Afinding for a p p ellants would spread the cost to ot her
co nsum er s, e ve n th oughappe llants f ai le d to a va il the m se lve s of the opp ortun iti es f

or pr ote ct ion

. A m er ic ana lso ar gue s that the ab se nc e of pr ivi ty doe s no t bar the appl ic at ion of the e co nom ic los s r

ule

. Appe llants sho uld be ba rr ed fr om cl ai m ing tha t the re is no pr ivi ty , sin ce the y

sou ght to es ta bli sh s om e ty

pe of c on tra ct ua l r el at ion shi p w ith
re spe ct to the ir br ea ch of w ar ranty cl aim

. See Appellee B r. at 22. H owever , e ven
assum ing that there is no privity , the econom ic loss rule would apply . Am erican
co nte nds tha t the e co nom ic los s r ule can ap ply

to sit ua tio ns w he re the re is no
co nt ract ua l re la ti on sh ip be twee n t he pa rti es . See, e. g., Ai r p o rt Rent-A -Car, I

nc. v . Prev os t Ca r, In c., 660 So

. 2d 628, 630 -3 1 ( Fl a. 1995 ); Ca sa C lar a, 620 So

. 2d a t 12 48; A p p e l l e e B r . a t 2 2

- 2 3

. A me r i c a n q u o t e s f r o m Florida Bldg. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Arn ol d C

or p., 660 S o. 2d 7 30 ( Fl a. D ist

. Ct

. A pp. 1995 ), in w hic h th e co urt st at ed :19

U nde r lim ite d c ir cu m stanc es , Fl or ida co urts hav e re co gni ze d exc ep tio ns t o th e ec o n o m i c l o s s d o c t r i n e , a n dh a v e a l l o w e dr e c o v e ry f r o m c e rt a i n t y

p e s of negligent providers o f s er v ices w ho were not in p rivity with the plaintiff. How ev er , i n t hese cases a dutywa s established to plaintiffs who we re ide nti fi ab le thi rd

pa rty be ne fi ci ar ie s of

the c ontra ct

to pr ovi de se rv ic es . Id

. a t 73 2 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). T he c ourt he ld tha t a wareh ou se subl es se e co uld not
re co ve r in to rt aga ins t a

r oof ins pe ct or

hir ed by the le sse e be ca

use the re w as "n o indication that the services provided by[the in spector] to [the lessee] we re intended to prim arily and directly benefit [the sublessee] ." Id

. at 733. The court reasoned that the subless ee
w as f ull y c ap ab le of

a ssu ri ng the c ondi tio n of the r oof by c hoos ing a nd h ir ing its own insp ectors ra ther than rely ing up on CPS' s insp ector. T he fac t that A rn old c hose to acce pt th e ri sk o f re ly ing upo n th e inf orm at ionsup pli ed

by CP S doe s no t i m

pose a duty upon FB IS , w ho did not know w ha t CP S did w ith the r ep ort a ft er

it w as de liv er ed

. Id

. a t 73 3. H er e, appe llants c onc ed ed tha t the y c ould no t am en d th e co m pla int to cl ai m in te nd edbe ne fic ia ry

st at us . See A ppe llant Br

. a t 9. A s in A rnol d, the re is no ind ic at ion tha t Am er ic an int en de d to pr im ar ily a nd d ir ec tly

be ne fi t a ppe llants
. A lso , as in A rnol

d an d a s n ot edab ov e, ap pe ll an ts ha d t he m ean s t o p ro te ctth ei r own int er es ts, but

did not
. He re, Indem

nity has filed suit in the United States District Court for the D istrict of South Carolina against Stevens Aviation, Inc., the entity that inspected the aircraf

t landing gear a ctuators, alleging, am ong o ther things , bre ac h of w arranty
. Since Indem nity , as subrog ee of P rofile's intere st, has a c ontractual rem edy against anoth erTo su pp or t th is a rgume nt, Am e ri c an c ite s Ex c ess R isk Un de rwr ite rs, In c . v . La

fay e tteLife 6 Ins. Co., 208 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1314 (S.D.F la.2002). 20 p a rt y, t h e e c o n o mi c l o s s r u l e c a n ap p l y. 6 B. O the r Pr ope rty A m er ic ana rg ue s th e la ndi ng g ear is an in te gr al pa rt of the A ir cr af

t. I t w oul d be absur d to sug ge st tha t a ppe llants bou ght

a n a sso rtm ent of ai rc ra ft pa rt s, not

the ai rc ra ft it se lf

. A m er ic anc ite s se ve ra l c as es to su pp ort i ts p osi tio n th at the landi ng ge ar com po ne nt was an in te gr al pa rt o f th e Air craf t i ts el f. Se e, e . g. , Ca sa C

lar a, 620 So

. 2d at 124 7; Premi

x-Ma rb le ti te Mfg . Cor

p. v. S KW Ch ems ., Inc ., 145 F

. Su pp. 2d 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 6 0 ( S

. D

. F l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( d a ma g e t o f i n i s h e d p ro d u ctb y c o mp o n e n t" d o e s n o tc o me wit hi n t he eco no m ic lo ss ru le 's ot he r pr op ert y da m ag e ex cep ti on "). See Appellee B r. at 2 7-28 (other cases). A m erican contends that " 'other property ' [ is] such dam age as
wou ld oc cu r if

de fect iv e b rak es on tru ckcau se d i t t o ru n i nt o a nd da m ag e a h om e." Ameri ca n Un iv . Ins . Gro up v. Gen

. M o t o rs Co rp ., 578 S o. 2d 4 51, 454 (Fla. Di st.Ct. App.1991)( ci tin g A m er ic an H om e A ssu ranc e Co

. v . M ajo r T ool & Mac hi ne , Inc ., 767 F

. 2d 4 46 ( 8thCi r. 1985 ))

. H er e, P ro fi le ba rg ai ne d f or a nd b ough t
ana ir plane , not a n a m al ga m at ion of pa rt s and com pone nts
. T he la ndi ng g ear w oul d be useless if not int egrated into the Air cr af t
. Th e Aircra ft is sim

ply not "oth er pr ope rty . " A ppe llants ' r el ia nc e on Comptech is m isp la ce d, be ca use tha t c as e cl earl y inv olv ed c om put er s w hic h ob vio usl y

w ere n ot an in te gr al pa rt of aw ar eh ouse in
w hic h th ey

w er e sto re d. C. Profe ssion al Ser

vices21

T he "p ro fe ssi ona l" e xc ep tio n a rt ic ula te d in Moransai s d o e s n o tap p l y. Appellants have not pled a p rofessional m alpractice action and sho uld no t be allowed to argue that exception no w. Moreover, Am erican argues, the fo u r-y ear degree
re qui re m en t se t ou t i n M

oran sai s has been consistent ly applied to d eterm ine whether
orno t s om eo ne is a pr of es si on al

. See Appe lle e Br. a t 31 -3 3. A lth oughthe FA A -c er tif ie d m ec ha nic s do und er go e xte nsi ve train in g, "[ t] he re c anbe no eq ui va le nc y ex cep ti on " to th e fo ur -y ear co ll eg e d eg ree re qu ire m en t. See G arden v. F rie r, 602 S o. 2d 1273, 1275 (F la

. 1992 ). FA A -m ec ha nic s ar e not re qui re d to aha ve
a fo ur -y ear co lle ge de gr ee , a nd thus ar e not pr of es sio na ls. D

. N eg lig en t M isr ep re se nta tio n The negligent m isrepresentation e xception does not apply because A m erican is n ot i n th e busi ne ss o f supp ly ing in fo rm at io n fo r the be ne fi t of appe llants
. I t i s undi sput ed

tha t A m er ic an is in the busi ne ss of m ai nta ini ng an d ins pe ct ing a ir cr af t and tha t the only reas on it m ak es e ntr ie s in to a log book is be ca use of F A A r eg ula tio ns. Mor eo ve r, in Fir

st Flo ri da Ban k, N.A. v. Max Mi tc he ll & Co ., 558 S o. 2d 9 (F la

. 1990 )( ad opt ing the e xc ep tio n) , the c ourt st at ed : [W ] e ar e pe rs ua de d by t he w isd om of the r ule w hic h li m its li ab ili ty

to tho se pe rs ons or

c la sse s of

pe rs ons w hom

a n a cc ountant " know s" w ill r el y on h is opin ion rather than those he "sho uld have kn own" would do so because it takes int o a cc ount

the f ac t tha t ana cc ount an t c ontro ls n ei the r his c lie nt' s a cc ount ing reco rd s n orth e d is tri bu ti on of h is rep or ts
.... Id

. a t 15. H er e, the re is no e vid en ce tha t A m er ic ankne w tha t a ppe llants w oul d r el y on the inform ation sup plied in th e logboo k. I ndeed, appellant s co n ce d ed that they
co uld not a m en d th ei r br ea chof

w ar ranty cl ai m s bec au se the y co uld not in good f ai thAm e ri c an a lso no te s th a t F AAre g ulatio ns re qu ir e an a ir c ra ft ' s o wn e r t o a nnua lly c on du c t a 7 complete inspec tion of the airc raf t. See14 C.F .R. § 9 1. 40 9( a )( 1) , ( d) (4 ). Thus , b e tw e e n th e date of the a lleg ed neg lige nce a nd the date of

the incident, the a ircra ft would have been inspe cted at least twice

. SeeAppellee Br . at 39. 22 allege that they

enj oy ed intended beneficiary status. Th e exceptio n has been
em ploy ed in "very

lim ited circum stances." Se e P ala u, 65 3 S o.2 d a t 4 17

. Se e als o Appellee B r. at 36 (other cases)

. P ala u, w hic h f

ound tha t an air cr af

t re pa ir sta tio n di d no t " supp ly inf orm at ion " unde r § 552, is s til l go od l aw , a nd n oth ing in M oran sai s or Comptech suggest s that th e Fl or id a Su pr em e Co ur t wo ul d h av e d eci de d t he cas e d iff eren tl y . See Appellee B r. at 3 7-40 (discuss ion of P ala u ). Se e als o R oc ky M ountain H

el ic opt er s, I nc . v . B el l 7 Heli co pt er Text ro n, In c., 24 F. 3d 125, 132- 33 (10 th C ir

. 1994 )( hol din g th at § 55 2 di d not appl y to sim ilar FA A r equired inform ation regarding a helicopter). Co nc lus ion Thi s court ha s su m

m ar iz ed the pos iti ons of

the pa rt ie s w ith out

appr ova l or rej ecti o n . These summ aries ar e not intend ed to lim it the argum ents of the parties before the S uprem e Court of Florida. Whil e w e ha ve sum

m ar iz ed the r es pe ct ive pos iti ons of the pa rt ie s, w e do n ot sugg e s t h o w t h e s t a t e l a w ( s ) s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d o r ap p l i e d

. " Wh e r e t h e r e i s a ny doub t as to the ap pli ca tio n of sta te la w , a fe de ra l cour t sh oul d c er

tif y the que sti on t o t h e s t a t e s up r e me c o u rtt o a v o i dmak i n g u n n e c e s s a ry E rie ' gue sse s' an d to o ff

er the state court the oppo rtunity to interpr et or change existing law ." M oshe r v . Spe ed

sta r Div. o f AMCA Inte rn ., Inc ., 52 F.3d 913, 916-17 (11t h Cir. 1995 ) (c itation o m itted). W e h av e a do ub t as to th e co rrec t ans wers to th e fo ll owi ng qu es ti on s of Fl or id a la w:23

I. W HETHER TH E "ECONOMIC L O SS " D O CT RI N E O F FL O RIDA APPLIES TO ALL EGED T ORTS IF THE DEFENDANT HAS PROVIDED SERVIC ES TO A PRODUCT RATHER TH AN HAS SOLD APRODUCT. I I

. W HETHER TH E "ECO N O M I C LO S S " DO C TR I N E O F F LO R I D A APPLIES IF THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL REL ATIONSHIP BETW EEN TH E PLAINTIFFS AND THE DEFEND ANT. III. W HETHER TH E "ECONOMIC L O SS " D O CT RI N E O F FL O RIDA APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE W ITH REGARD TO DAMAGE TO T HE TOTAL AIRCR AFT AS OPPOSED TO M ER E DAM AGE TO THE LANDING GE AR UNDER THE "OTHER PROPERTY" EXCEPTION. I V

. W HETHER TH E P R O V I D I N G OF C ER TI F I ED M EC H A N I C A L S ER V I C ES FA LL S U ND ER TH E C AT EG ORYOF TH E " P R O F E S S I O N A L S ER VI CE S" EXCEPTION TO THE " ECONOMIC LOSS" DOCTRI NE OF FLORIDA OR UNDER SOME RELATED SERVICES EXCEPTION. V. W HE TH ER

TH E NE GL IG EN T MISR EP RE SE NT AT IO N CL AI M IN TH IS CAS E P ROV ID ES ANEX CE PT IO N T O T HE "ECON OMI C L OS S" DOCTRINE OF FLORIDA. CERTIFI CATION W e ce rt if y the above -s ty le d qu es tio ns t o th e Su pr em e Co urt of F lor ida

. T he phrasing u sed in these certified questions shoul d not restrict that C ourt's
co nsi de ra tio n of the pr obl em s of sta te la w pose d by thi s ca se . T his ex te nds to any restatem ent of the issues bythat Court and the m anner in wh i ch the answer s are giv en . T o a ssi st tha t C ourt' s c onsi de ra tio n of the c as e, the e nti re r ec or d, a lon g w ith the briefs of the parties, shall be transm itted to th e Suprem e Court of Florida. QUESTIONS CERTIFIED.