Melendez v. Dreis and Krump Manufacturing Company

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court held that the 1986 repeal of Florida's products-liability statute of repose did not apply retroactively absent a clear legislative manifestation of retroactive intent. The court further held that Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., which upheld the statute of repose after overruling Battilla, applied retrospectively and barred the plaintiff's action.

Holdings

1. The 1986 repeal of section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes, did not apply retroactively because the legislation contained no clear manifestation of legislative intent to operate retroactively.
2. Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc. applied retrospectively and therefore barred Melendez's product-liability action, which accrued after the twelve-year repose period had expired.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 1986 legislative repeal of section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes, abolishing the product-liability statute of repose, applied retroactively to a cause of action that accrued before the amendment's effective date.
2. Whether Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., which overruled Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co. and upheld the constitutionality of the statute of repose, applied retrospectively to bar a cause of action accruing after Battilla but before Pullum.

Disposition

affirmed