Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 1991 · Torts

Tortseconomic loss doctrineproducts liabilitynegligencebuilding codepurely economic lossother propertycomponent part

Facts

The homeowners alleged that concrete supplied by Toppino and used in constructing their homes and condominium buildings contained excessive chlorides. According to the complaints, the chlorides caused reinforcing steel embedded in the concrete to rust and expand, which cracked structural components and caused pieces of concrete to fall from the buildings. The deterioration allegedly produced a substantial loss of structural integrity and required extensive repair or replacement of the homes and buildings. The homeowners sued Toppino for common law implied warranty, negligence, strict product liability, and violation of the Florida Building Code.

Issue

Whether homeowners may recover in tort from a supplier of allegedly defective concrete when the concrete became an integral part of the structures and the alleged damage was to the structures and their components, without any allegation of personal injury or damage to other property. Whether a concrete supplier may be liable for violation of the State Minimum Building Codes when it merely supplied materials and did not perform construction-related work.

Rule

A plaintiff cannot recover tort damages for purely economic losses such as repair, replacement, or diminution in value. When a supplied component becomes an integral part of a structure, the structure itself is the relevant property for purposes of the economic loss doctrine; damage to the structure and its components is not damage to 'other property.' A material supplier that does not perform the construction, erection, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building has no duty of compliance under the State Minimum Building Codes and therefore cannot be liable for violating them.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tampa, Gulf Shore Supply sold prefabricated concrete panels to a contractor building a townhouse complex for Lena Ortiz. After installation, excessive mineral content in the panels corroded embedded metal mesh, causing cracks in load-bearing walls and requiring major structural repairs. No person was injured, and no property outside the townhouse structures was damaged.

Can Lena most likely recover from Gulf Shore Supply in negligence for the repair costs?

Explanation. The majority opinion bars tort recovery for purely economic losses such as repair and replacement when the allegedly defective item becomes an integral part of a larger structure. In that circumstance, the structure itself is the relevant property, so damage to its walls and other components is not damage to 'other property.' Because Lena alleges only structural damage and repair costs, with no personal injury or separate property damage, negligence recovery is barred. (Derived from Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc. (n.d.).)