NBIS Construction & Transport Insurance Services v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 93 F.4th 1304

This case stems from the collapse of a crane boom that resulted in property damage and a fatality.
Sims Crane & Equipment Company bought the crane; the collapse occurred after a Sims apprentice accidentally adjusted the wrong pin (T4 instead of T3) due to insufficient training and lack of warning.
Liebherr-America, the distributor and servicer, provided only partial training and failed to timely send a crucial product safety bulletin about the T4 pin.
NBIS, the insurer for Sims, paid out on the insured loss and sued Liebherr-America for negligence to recover over $1.7 million for damages to the crane itself (not for personal injury or other property).
At trial, the magistrate found for NBIS, ruling the economic loss rule did not bar recovery because there was no product defect and the claim was for negligent services, not products liability.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit found Florida law unclear on whether the economic loss rule bars such tort claims and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Florida’s economic loss rule to non-defective product claims	NBIS argues its claim is not for a defective product but for negligent services (training/warning), so the rule does not apply	Liebherr-America says claims are functionally products liability (failure to warn), so the rule bars all recovery for damage to the product itself	Court found law unclear and certified question to FL Supreme Court
Duty to warn/training where no product defect	NBIS argues the distributor had an independent duty to provide proper training and warnings	Liebherr-America contends its duties arise solely under products liability law, only triggered with product defect or non-economic damages	Magistrate agreed with NBIS, but the 11th Circuit deferred ultimate decision to state court
Scope of negligence claims for economic damages	NBIS claims economic damages from negligent services can be recovered in tort	Liebherr-America says economic loss rule bars all claims for purely economic loss to the product itself	Court certified question to FL Supreme Court
Effect of stipulation that product was non-defective	NBIS argues this puts claim outside products liability paradigm	Liebherr-America says duty to warn attaches regardless of defect, making economic loss rule applicable	Magistrate accepted NBIS's framing; appellate court seeks state guidance

Tiara Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 110 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2013) (reaffirming the economic loss rule applies only to products liability cases)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1987) (economic loss rule bars tort recovery for purely economic loss without personal injury or other property damage)
Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2004) (explained the development and limits of the economic loss rule)
Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958) (duty to warn for inherently dangerous products)
Geffrey v. Langston Constr. Co., 58 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1952) (crane in operation is inherently dangerous)
Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1999) (limited the scope of the economic loss rule for non-products claims)