Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 714 F.3d 1253

Tiara Condominium Association hired Marsh & McLennan as its insurance broker to obtain condominium insurance.
Tiara suffered extensive wind damage from hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in September 2004 and sought insurance proceeds.
Tiara claimed Marsh failed to procure adequate coverage, causing economic loss; asserted claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, among others.
The district court granted summary judgment for Marsh on contract, negligent misrepresentation, and implied covenant claims, but not on negligence and fiduciary duty claims which proceeded to appellate review.
The Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court a question about whether the economic loss rule bars tort claims against an insurance broker when the parties are in contractual privity.
The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question negatively, holding the economic loss rule applies only to products liability, vacating and remanding the district court’s rulings on negligence and fiduciary duty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the economic loss rule bar tort claims against an insurance broker?	Tiara argues the rule should bar tort claims arising from the contract with Marsh.	Marsh contends the rule should preclude tort claims in privity scenarios.	No; economic loss rule limited to products liability.
Is an insurance broker a professional service for the purposes of the professional service exception?	Tiara contends the broker fits the professional services exception allowing tort recovery.	Marsh contends the exception does not apply to insurance brokers.	Not decided; the court remanded in light of the Florida Supreme Court's opinion limiting the rule to products cases.

Casa Clara Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993) (economic loss as contractual protection; product-like damages context)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So.2d 899 (Fla. 1987) (products liability roots of economic loss rule; warranty focus)
Am. Aviation, Inc. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 891 So.2d 532 (Fla. 2004) (limits tort liability; preserves exceptions and product context)
Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So.2d 973 (Fla. 1999) (support for limiting rule to product context)
AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Telegraph Co., 515 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1987) (extension of rule to non-product services; later receded)
East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (foundation for product-based economic loss analysis)