Case Name: BIRWELCO-MONTENAY, INC.; Montenay Power Corp., and Miami-Dade County, Appellants, v. INFILCO DEGREMONT, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-10-17
Citations: 827 So. 2d 255
Docket Number: No. 3D00-2598
Parties: BIRWELCO-MONTENAY, INC.; Montenay Power Corp., and Miami-Dade County, Appellants, v. INFILCO DEGREMONT, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before LEVY, GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 827
Pages: 255–259

Head Matter:
BIRWELCO-MONTENAY, INC.; Montenay Power Corp., and Miami-Dade County, Appellants, v. INFILCO DEGREMONT, INC., Appellee.
No. 3D00-2598.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 17, 2001.
Dissenting Opinion on Denial of Rehearing En Banc Oct. 16, 2002.
Holland & Knight and James D. Wing and Belinda H. Bacon and Barbara M. Arco, Miami, for appellants.
Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson and J. Cameron Story, III (Jacksonville), for ap-pellee.
Before LEVY, GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
SHEVIN, Judge.
Birwelco-Montenay, Inc., Montenay Power Corp., and Miami-Dade County [collectively "appellants"] appeal a final judgment following an order granting In-filco Degremont, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.
Appellants contracted with Infilco to provide a well water treatment system as part of an expansion and retrofit project at the County's Resource Recovery Plant. Infileo's system caused delays thereby causing the County to pay delay damages. Appellants sued Infilco under various theories of recovery, including professional design negligence. Infilco moved for summary judgment asserting that the contract between the parties was for provision of goods, not for services, and hence governed by the Uniform Commercial Code; and that the economic loss rule barred appellants' cause of action. Appellants filed affidavits in opposition to summary judgment asserting that the contract was for services, and that the economic loss rule did not bar the professional design negligence claim. The trial court granted Infilco's summary judgment motion and entered a final judgment in the cause.
"The proper standard of review, of a summary judgment is de novo. In order to determine the propriety of a summary judgment, this court must resolve whether there is any 'genuine issue as to any material fact' and whether 'the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' " Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So.2d 490, 491-92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citations omitted). A review of the record demonstrates that there are genuine issues of fact regarding the proper characterization of the contract that preclude summary judgment.
Summary judgment is inappropriate where the contract at issue is susceptible of two interpretations. Dade County School Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla.1999); Miller v. Kase, 789 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Palazzolo v. Fessler, 680 So.2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Hancock v. Brumer, Cohen, Logan, Kandell & Kaufman, 580 So.2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc., 503 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Here, each side argues that the contract is clear and unambiguous, and it should be construed consistent with that side's position. However, "each [side] ascribes a different meaning to the 'unambiguous' language of the contract...." Miller, 789 So.2d at 1098. This renders the contract ambiguous; summary judgment is improper.
We note that BMC Indus., Inc. v. Barth Indus., Inc., 160 F.3d 1322, 1331 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1132, 119 S.Ct. 1807, 143 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1999), on which the parties rely as dispositive of this matter, states that "[t]he question whether a contract is predominantly for goods or services is generally one of fact." The court can only decide this issue, as a question of law, if there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning the contract's provisions. BMC Indus., Inc. We agree. Where, as here, the parties sharply dispute whether the nature of the contract is one for goods or for services, summary judgment is inappropriate: A jury must determine the nature of the contract.
Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred in entering summary judgment. Thus, the judgment entered based on that ruling is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.