RIP ELR.

We've written before about the slow painful demise of the once-mighty economic loss rule, the late 80's legal equivalent of flatbread or, to bring this into 2013, "greek yogurt."

(For insight into why -- all of a sudden -- everyone must constantly be asked whether they would like some quinoa and coconut water with every meal, click here.)

So it's no surprise that, like most things from the 80s, the Florida Supreme Court has decided that it's best to just forget that whole thing ever happened:

Having reviewed the origin and original purpose of the economic loss rule, and what has been described as the unprincipled extension of the rule, we now take this final step and hold that the economic loss rule applies only in the products liability context. We thus recede from our prior rulings to the extent that they have applied the economic loss rule to cases other than products liability. The Court will depart from precedent as it does here “when such departure is ‘necessary to vindicate other principles of law or to remedy continued injustice.’ ” Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1131 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 618 (Fla. 1992)). Stare decisis will also yield when an established rule has proven unacceptable or unworkable in practice. See Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So. 3d 576, 574 (Fla. 2010). Our experience with the economic loss rule over time, which led to the creation of the exceptions to the rule, now demonstrates that expansion of the rule beyond its origins was unwise and unworkable in practice. Thus, today we return the economic loss rule to its origin in products liability.

Hooray!

(Next I hope the Supremes address the unwise and unworkable expansion of flatbread well beyond its historic origins...)

BTW Justices Canady and Polston in dissent really get it wrong, as Justice Pariente politely points out.

Or am I totally wrong on this?

I think the dissenting Justices are overdramatizing this ruling but hey, if they truly believe the tort floodgates have been completely opened, there is ample language for plaintiffs to cite in opposition to the inevitable motions to dismiss when you try to tack on a tort to every run of the mill contract case.

Lawyers' Hippocratic Oath?

Good ole' primum non nocere.

I think Judge Marra is suggesting it's not just for doctors:

As stated throughout this litigation, Plaintiffs have made review of this matter particularly difficult because of the summarized or co-mingled manner in which they present their arguments and their extensive use of supra and infra for cites. On more than one occasion, this has pointed to places in the record where there is mere argument without citation, or to cites that do not stand for the proposition asserted.

In a footnote he gets more specific:

Plaintiffs’ manner of presenting their case impedes decision making by forcing the Court to aimlessly search the record for relevant evidence, or the lack of evidence, to support or refute a claim.

Ok, but otherwise how'm I doing?

3d DCA Watch -- Love Hurts Edition.

Hi kids, only two civil cases of any note in this week's 3d DCA Watch, so let's get right to it:

Great Lakes Reinsurance v. JHB:

The tragic events of the Joe Cool charter fishing boat wend their way through the courts, this time involving whether the insurance company properly adjusted the claim.

Schecter v. Schecter:

Exactly what kind of pre-nup is this:

In July 2002, after an eighteen year romantic relationship, the parties executed a prenuptial agreement in which the now former husband, Leroy Schecter, (then with a disclosed net worth approaching $160 million) and the now former wife, Shoshana Candiotti, (then with a worth of almost $1 million) agreed that in the event their contemplated marriage ended in a divorce, Shoshana would receive only $260,000 from Mr. Schecter.

Ahh, the things we do for love!

We Have All Been Here Before?

Wow, let's see -- Dow hits record high, Chavez is out in Venezuela -- is it the 90s all over again?

In other news, for those of you who remember this case involving a teenage girl on a Carnival cruise and an alleged invasive strip search, Judge Rosenbaum has denied Carnival's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's punitive damages claim:

As discussed above, there are material disputes in this case as to whether Defendant’s employees conducted a strip search, including a cavity search, of a seventeen-year-old passenger and whether Defendant’s policies permit such a search. If Defendant’s employees performed such a search, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant’s policies permitting the strip search of a minor, if supported by the facts at trial, do not rise to the type of “gross and flagrant” conduct that would support the award of punitive damages.

Hey, so there's that.

But at least they take good care of their passengers when a ship breaks down unexpectedly!

Plaintiff is represented by Kimberly Lambert at Levin Papantonio, and Carnival by Curtis J. Mase.

BREAKING!

Extra, Extra! Read all about it here!

Israel can now read Playboy "for the articles" as a Hebrew language edition came to the holy land Tuesday!

Its about time. There are a lot of talented writers going unnoticed.

N.B. Just in time to pass the time while the smoke rises.

Sorry, Hospitals Aren't Safe Either!

First they came for the bounce houses,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a bounce house enthusiast.
Then they came for the school buses,
and I didn't speak out because I don't ride one anymore.
Then they came for the sushi chefs,
and I got really pissed off because I love sushi.

Hey, it's gotta end somewhere.

SFL Friday -- (The Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes!

Bit of a slow day, news-wise, here is what's on my mind today:

1.  Just like a Justin Bieber concert, the Palm Beach Bench & Bar Conference is SOLD OUT:

BENCH BAR CONFERENCE IS SOLD OUT AND WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ANY WALK-INS

Sorry judges, you'll just have to gate-crash.

2.  The DBR has handed out their firm awards in various categories, congrats to the winners!

3.   Gary Farmer has filed suit against Citizens Property Insurance, let's hope the litigation concludes sometime before the last citrus canker case goes to trial.

4.   Elvis Costello was right!  (sort of).