Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Two courts held that the later repeal removed the repose bar for claims arising after repeal, and four courts confined Pullum's retrospective effect. The six confirmed treatments are listed below.
70 later cases cite Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.; 70 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
The Florida circuit court held that the repeal of the products liability statute of repose left Pullum's former bar inapplicable to a claim arising after repeal.
Ramos v. Carnahan · Florida Circuit Court · filed
The Pullum line of cases has no relevance to the case now before this Court. ... However, at the time this claim arose in 1986, the statute of repose was not in effect and, therefore, could not operate to bar RAMOS’ claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 1986 repeal allowed a products liability claim arising after repeal even though the old repose period had expired.
Acosta v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. · Florida Third District Court of Appeal · filed
Then, in 1985, the Florida Supreme Court, in Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 1985), receded from Battilla and held that the statute of repose is "not unconstitutionally violative of the Florida Constitution." The following year, the Florida legislature amended section 95.031(2) to repeal the twelve-year statute of repose in products liability actions. ... Based upon the plain language of the 1986 amendment and case law interpreting the repealed and current versions of section 95.031(2), we conclude that the repealed statute of repose is inapplicable here and that a products liability action may be maintained under sections 95.031(2) and 95.11, Florida Statutes (1987).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The court held that Pullum's revived repose defense did not extinguish contribution liability arising from a settlement made before Pullum was decided.
Home Insurance Co. v. Advance Machine Co. · Florida First District Court of Appeal · filed
Shortly after Pullum was decided, Advance moved for summary judgment in the contribution proceeding arguing that, in view of the Pullum holding, there was no longer a basis for common liability, one of the necessary elements of a contribution claim. The trial court granted the summary judgment ruling that the statute of repose would bar the underlying tort claim and that therefore no common liability existed. ... We hold that common liability under the contribution statute was not extinguished with the Supreme Court's resurrection of a procedural defense that did not exist and could not have been foreseen at the time of settlement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to apply Pullum retroactively to plaintiffs who had relied on Battilla when filing their claim.
National Insurance Underwriters v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. · Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal · filed
In the present case, the appellants had more than 16-1/2 months from the date of the accident within which to bring suit under the statute of repose. However, justifiably relying upon Battilla, they filed suit after the statute of repose had expired, *55 but within the normal four-year statute of limitations.[2] This detrimental reliance requires that Pullum not be applied retroactively in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Florida Supreme Court held that Pullum's repose bar could not retrospectively extinguish claims that accrued while Battilla governed and remained timely under the then applicable filing period.
Frazier v. Baker Material Handling Corp. · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
In contrast, petitioners' claims had accrued prior to the expiration of the statute of repose. While they still had time to file a claim within the statutory period, Battilla was decided and petitioners were at that time no longer bound to adhere to a twelve-year statute of repose. Petitioners had no reason to know that Pullum would "resurrect" the statute of repose, effectively cutting off their viable claims. Thus, the trial court incorrectly granted respondents' motion for summary judgment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Florida Supreme Court applied the reliance exception to preserve a timely products liability claim that Pullum would otherwise have barred.
Mosher v. Speedstar Division of AMCA International, Inc. · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
Like the plaintiffs in Frazier, Mosher had no reason to know that our subsequent decision in Pullum would resurrect the statute of repose, thereby cutting off his claim. Mosher thus fell within the category of plaintiffs whose cause of action accrued within twelve years of the date of delivery of the product and while our decision in Battilla was in still in effect. As a matter of law, he was justified in relying on Battilla.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace