Opinion ID: 1832455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kennedy Electric v. Stallings

Text: In Stallings v. Kennedy Electric, Inc., 710 So.2d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the trial court dismissed Stallings' fourth amended complaint, which contained counts for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory damages under section 553.84, Florida Statutes (1995). The suit was brought against Kennedy Electric, the subcontractor who had installed the electrical wiring during the construction of the Stallings' home. The Stallings alleged the wiring was faulty and caused two fires. The trial court dismissed all three causes of action based on the economic loss rule. [10] The Fifth District reversed the dismissal of the count under section 553.84, holding the economic loss rule does not apply to statutory causes of action. We agree and therefore approve the Fifth District's decision. In reaching its conclusion, the Fifth District relied on Rubio, 662 So.2d at 956, and Delgado, 693 So.2d at 602. In each case, the district court found the economic loss rule could not be used to defeat a statutory cause of action (section 624.155 and section 501.213, respectively), especially where the Legislature has made it clear that the statutory remedy is available notwithstanding the fact that there may be another cause of action. As we stated above, the Legislature has made it abundantly clear in unambiguous language that the statutory remedy for violation of the building code is available notwithstanding any other civil remedies available. The judicially created economic loss rule cannot abrogate this statutory cause of action. We therefore approve the Fifth District's determination that a cause of action pursuant to section 553.84 is not precluded by the economic loss rule. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., concurs with an opinion, in which PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., concurring. I concur in the well-reasoned analysis of the majority opinion. I write only to reiterate my view expressed in my concurring opinion in Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So.2d 973 (Fla. 1999), that in order to clarify the application of the economic loss rule, I would expressly state that its application is limited to product claims and would recede from AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 515 So.2d 180 (Fla.1987). PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.