620 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1993)
The trial court held that petitioner homeowners could not recover for purely economic losses from respondent concrete supplier under a negligence theory. Petitioners owned homes built with, and allegedly damaged by, respondent's concrete. Some of petitioners' claims against respondent were based on a theory of negligence. The appellate court held that because no person was injured and no other property was damaged, petitioners had no cause of action against respondent in tort.
- On appeal the supreme court approved the appellate court's ruling, holding that contract principles were more appropriate than tort principles for recovering economic loss without accompanying physical injury or property damage.
- The supreme court noted that for recovery in tort there had to be a showing of harm above and beyond disappointed expectations, and a buyer's desire to enjoy the benefit of his bargain was not an interest that tort law traditionally protected.
- Finally, the supreme court held that respondent's concrete did not damage other property, as required for a claim in tort, because petitioners purchased homes as a finished product, not as individual components.
The court approved the court of appeal's decision, holding that the economic loss rule was applicable and precluded petitioner homeowners from recovering against respondent concrete supplier for purely economic losses under a negligence claim.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law