National Insurance Underwriters v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
COBB, Judge.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment, based upon the twelve-year statute of repose, section 95.-031(2), Florida Statutes (1983), which provided:
Actions for products liability and fraud under s. 95.11(3) must be begun within the period prescribed in this chapter, *54with the period running from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, instead of running from any date prescribed elsewhere in s. 95.11(3), but in any event…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1985
- Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1980
- Melendez v. Dreis and Krump Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1987
- Florida Forest & Park Service v. Eston StricklandSupreme Court of Florida · 1944
- Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. PhliegerSupreme Court of Florida · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Frazier v. Baker Material Handling Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1990
- Frazier v. Baker Material Handling Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
- Lowell v. Singer Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
- NAT. INS. UNDERWRITERS v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988