[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff purchased a product;
2. Plaintiff was a foreseeable user of the product;
3. Plaintiff was using the product in the intended manner at the time of the injury;
4. The product was defective when transferred from the warrantor; and
5. The defect caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff purchased a product;
2. Plaintiff was a foreseeable user of the product;
3. Plaintiff was using the product in the intended manner at the time of the injury;
4. The product was defective when transferred from the warrantor; and
5. The defect caused the plaintiff’s injury.

The plaintiff must give notice for statutory breach of warranty claims (§ 672.607(3)(a) Fla. Stat.) unless such notice is excused. See Monroe County v. Gonzalez, 593 So. 2d 1143, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Courts are divided over whether Florida’s adoption of the U.C.C. displaces common-law claims for breach of implied warranty. Compare Cardozo v. True, 342 So. 2d 1053, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)(Florida’s U.C.C. does not displace common-law doctrine of implied warranty) and West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 88 (Fla. 1976) (U.C.C. remedies are exclusive only where decreed by legislature) with Taylor v. American Honda Motor Co., 555 F. Supp. 59, 62 (M.D. Fla. 1982)(Florida’s U.C.C. provides the exclusive remedy for breach of implied warranty against a seller of goods).

See Form 1.949, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (Forms for Use with Rules)

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Second District: McCarthy v. Fla. Ladder Co., 295 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Fourth District: Ainsworth v. K.L.I., Inc., 967 So.2d 296, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Amoroso v. Samuel Friedland Enters., 604 So. 2d 827, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), aff’d 630 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1994).

Fifth District: Masci Corp. w. Fortiline, Inc., 202 So.3d 434, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Southern District: Dawn Int'l Ltd. v. Jacob Fleishman Sales, Inc., No. 22-CV-24177, 2024 WL 4464951, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. DAWN INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff, v. JACOB FLEISHMAN SALES, INC., Defendant., No. 22-24177-CIV, 2025 WL 916757 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2025); Plain Bay Sales, LLC v. Gallaher, 2022 WL 409577, *12-14 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2022); Marjam Supply Co. of Fla., LLC v. Pliteq, Inc., No. 15-24363-CIV-WILLIAMS, 2018 WL 4932871 at *7 (S.D. Fla. April 23, 2018); All Underwriters Subscribing to Policy of Insur. No. B0621MMILSYB15055 v. Rika Boats Ltd., No. 16-20498-CIV, 2017 WL 1439944, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2017).

Middle District:    Hernandez v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., 2022 WL 204401, *10-11 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2022);      Landi v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 217CV701FTM38MRM, 2019 WL 4644243, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2019); Armadillo Distrib. Enters., Inc. v. Hai Yun Musical Instruments Manufacture Co. Ltd., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1254 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Northern District: Wyse v. Gerard Roof Prods., LLC, No. 3:19cv121-TKW-EMT, 2019 WL 7347179, at *2 (N.D. Fla. November 12, 2019).

FLORIDA STATUTES

§ 672.314, Fla. Stat.

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Implied Warranty

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(c),(e), Fla. Stat. (four years); see Elizabeth N. v. Riverside Group, Inc., 585 So. 2d 376, 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (§ 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat., governs claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability based on rape).

(3) Federal and state courts disagree on the issue of privity. Federal district courts diverge on the issue, and the 11th Circuit has specifically declined to rule that privity is required in all cases. See Godelia v. Doe 1, 881 F.3d 1309, 1321 (11th Cir. 2018). Florida state courts uniformly require privity with the seller to recover for breach of express and implied warranties. See Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 1988); Kelly v. Lee Cty. RV Sales Co., No: 8:18-CV-424-T-27JSS, 2019 WL 5887482, at *7 (M.D. Fla. November 12, 2019).

(4) Plaintiff/buyer must notify defendant/seller within a reasonable time after he or she discovers, or should have discovered, the breach. § 672.607(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

(5) Conspicuous disclaimers written in plain language are a defense to breach of warranty claims § 672.316(3)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat.; see also Parson v. Motor Homes of America, Inc., 465 So. 2d 1285, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

(6) A waiver signed by the aggrieved party is an absolute defense to breach of warranty claims. § 671.107, Fla. Stat.

(7) Plaintiff’s failure to properly reject the goods may serve to diminish the recovery of damages. See Central Florida Antenna Serv., Inc. v. A.M. Crabtree, 503 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); see also § 672.608, Fla. Stat.

(8) Product misuse will diminish the plaintiff’s recovery through comparative negligence. But compare Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So. 2d 331, 334 (Fla. 1969) (product misuse is a defense to breach of warranty actions) with Standard Havens Products v. Benitez, 648 So. 2d 1192, 1197 (Fla. 1994) (product misuse reduces plaintiff’s recovery through comparative negligence).

(9) Assumption of the risk will diminish the plaintiff’s recovery through comparative negligence. West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 92 (Fla. 1976).

(10) A military contractor is saved from liability when the contractor (a) had no or minimal input in the design of the product, or warned the military of the product’s risks and notified the military of alternative designs then reasonably known by the contractor, and (b) the military authorized the contractor to proceed despite the product’s dangerous design. Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1265, 1269 (Fla. 1987).

[/MM_Access_Decision]