Case Name: Alberto CLAUSELL and Patricia Clausell, Appellants, v. HOBART CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-05-12
Citations: 506 So. 2d 1160
Docket Number: No. 86-924
Parties: Alberto CLAUSELL and Patricia Clausell, Appellants, v. HOBART CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: Before DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 506
Pages: 1160–1161

Head Matter:
Alberto CLAUSELL and Patricia Clausell, Appellants, v. HOBART CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 86-924.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 12, 1987.
Spence, Payne, Masington, Grossman & Needle, Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefs-berg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin and Joel S. Perwin, Miami, for appellants.
Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl and James E. Tribble and Angela L. DerOvane-sian, Miami, for appellee.
Before DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed on the authority of Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We certify the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court as questions of great public importance. As in Shaw:
I. WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 95.-031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983), ABOLISHING THE STATUTE OF REPOSE IN PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY AS TO A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ACCRUED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT.
II. IF NOT, WHETHER THE DECISION OF PULLUM 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. ALLIS CHALMERS MFG. CO., 392 SO.2D 874 (FLA.1980), APPLIES SO AS TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PULLUM DECISION.
And, additionally:
III. WOULD THE APPLICATION OF PULLUM, TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PULLUM DECISION, DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF OF A RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?
Affirmed.