505 F. App'x 899
11th Cir.2013Background
- Marlborough appealed district court grants of summary judgment to Benetti, Bertram and associated defendants.
- The 2000 Agreement granted a ten-year hull warranty; Bertram/Benetti anti-assignment clause limited transferability.
- Marlborough acquired the yacht in 2008 and learned of prior hull damage during construction from surveys not disclosed.
- Marlborough alleged concealment and warranty coverage, leading to suit in 2008.
- FDUTPA claims were argued to be timely under the delayed discovery rule, which the court rejected as inapplicable to FDUTPA.
- Court affirmed rulings on MMWA/express warranty and conspiracy pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMWA transferability of the ten-year warranty | Marlborough asserts warranty transferable and enforceable | Anti-assignment clause limits transferability | Ten-year warranty not enforceable under MMWA due to transferability limits |
| Express warranty enforceability under Florida law | Warranty extends to first and subsequent purchasers | Bertram did not assign rights; Marlborough is incidental beneficiary | No enforceable express warranty for Marlborough under Florida law |
| FDUTPA time-bar and delayed discovery | Delayed discovery applies; claims timely | FDUTPA claims time-barred; delayed discovery inapplicable to statutory liability | FDUTPA claims time-barred; delayed discovery not applicable |
| Civil conspiracy pleading | Conspiracy pleadings embedded in FDUTPA/fraud counts | Must plead conspiracy as a separate count | No separate conspiracy count; pleading acceptable if underlying claim supports |
| Conspiracy and accrual relation to underlying claims | Conspiracy continued into 2008 | Conspiracy unpleaded as separate claim; accrual untimely | Conspiracy theory not salvageable; no separate viable conspiracy claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1996) (separate claims should be stated in separate counts; avoid undifferentiated pleading)
- Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (U.S. 2009) (statutory language implies intentional distinctions in statute interpretation)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (federal pleading standards; avoid lumping claims together)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (illustrates pleading requirements for multiple claims)
- W. Constr., Inc. v. Fla. Blacktop, Inc., 88 So.3d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (separate contract terms; offer/acceptance requirements for contracts)