FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

CONTACT INFORMATION

Cox Law Office
156 East Bloomingdale Ave.,
Brandon, 33511
Phone: (813) 685 8600

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK

11th Circuit Rules on Florida’s Economic Lost Rule

Liebherr-America, Inc., d/b/a Liebherr USA Co., and Liebherr Cranes, Inc. v. NBIS Construction & Transport Insurance Services

(a) Facts 

What Happened: Liebherr-America sold an LTM 1500 crane (made by Liebherr-Germany) to SIMS with 40 hours of training, omitting T4 pin risks. A 2017 Japan incident led to a safety bulletin, but SIMS wasn’t notified or retrofitted. In 2018, improper T4 manipulation caused the crane’s collapse; an employee died, but NBIS claimed only the crane’s $1.74M value. NBIS sued for negligence (failure to train, warn, and distribute bulletins). Liebherr-America sought summary judgment, citing the economic loss rule. Two counts were dismissed pretrial; the trial focused on failure to warn. 

Judgment: The magistrate ruled for NBIS, awarding $1,744,752.74 plus interest, finding Liebherr-America negligent for not warning SIMS. Liebherr-America appealed.

(b) Issues 

Does Florida’s economic loss rule bar NBIS’s negligence claim for the crane’s value when the product wasn’t defective, but Liebherr-America failed to warn of a known danger? 

Did Liebherr-America have a tort duty to warn SIMS, or is recovery limited to contract/insurance under the economic loss rule?

(c) Holding 

The magistrate held that the economic loss rule doesn’t apply; Liebherr-America breached its duty to warn SIMS of the T4 danger, making it liable for the crane’s value in tort.

(d) Rationale 

The crane wasn’t defective (per pretrial stipulation), but Liebherr-America failed to inform SIMS of a known risk (T4 manipulation), per a safety bulletin it didn’t distribute due to an outdated owner database. 

Economic loss rule applies to product defects, not service failures like inadequate warnings, training, or updates. 

Liebherr-America’s negligence caused the collapse, justifying NBIS’s recovery beyond contract limits.

(e) Comments 

            It seems the Court muddied the waters on what was previously a clean position on Florida’s Economic Loss Rule.

VIEW THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Scroll to Top