Case Name: Robert P. WALLIS, Appellant, v. The GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-02-24
Citations: 503 So. 2d 366
Docket Number: No. 86-238
Parties: Robert P. WALLIS, Appellant, v. The GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 503
Pages: 366–366

Head Matter:
Robert P. WALLIS, Appellant, v. The GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 86-238.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 24, 1987.
Melvin A. Rubin, Jerry B. Schreiber, Joseph C. Segor, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl and James E. Tribble and Angela L. DerOvane-sian, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The summary final judgment in favor of the defendant, The Grumman Corporation, is affirmed on the authority of Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). As in Shaw, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following questions as being of great public importance:
I. Should the legislative amendment of Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1983), abolishing the statute of repose in product liability actions, be construed to operate retrospectively as to a cause of action which accrued before the effective date of the amendment?
II. If not, should the decision of Pul-lum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985), appeal dismissed, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1626, 90 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986), which overruled Battilla v. Al-lis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980), apply so as to bar a cause of action that accrued after the Battil-la decision but before the Pullum decision?
Affirmed.