Steve W. Cornman, of the Miami office, the week before a lengthy, complex products liability trial was scheduled to commence in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the district judge entered a twelve page order granting the defense motion for summary judgment Steve had filed. The Plaintiff was the roofing contractor who had purchased various roofing materials from Steve’s clients, including an adhesive which was alleged to have been defective and to have been the primary cause of the premature detachment of portions of the membrane of the roofing system the contractor repaired. The roofing contractor sued Steve’s client seeking millions of dollars in damages for labor, materials, and other expenses allegedly incurred. The complaint included counts for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and of fitness for a particular use, as well as counts for breach of express warranty and for violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Steve’s team filed a motion for summary judgment fully utilizing the summary judgment standard applied by the federal courts, which allows (and invites) a Defendant to move for summary judgment if, after adequate time for discovery, the Defendant can affirmatively establish that the Plaintiff is without competent proof to establish the necessary elements of the causes of action alleged. In this case, Steve took the position that to establish that his clients’ adhesive product was “defective” and was the cause of the Plaintiff’s damages, Plaintiff must, as a matter of law, present expert testimony. Therefore, he argued the defense was entitled to summary judgment since Plaintiff was electing to pursue the case without an expert to support the claims. The district judge agreed with Steve, and therefore granted the defense summary judgment.