Effiе Dell CASSIDY, As Guardian of the Person of Kenneth Cassidy, Florida Natiоnal Bank, As Guardian of the Property of Kenneth Cassidy, and Sharon Cassidy, As Wife of Kenneth Cassidy, Appellants,
v.
The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Ford Motor Company, a Corporation, аnd the Budd Company, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Thomas T. Remington, of Smith, Grimsley, Remington & Kessler, Ft. Walton Beach, for appellants.
G. Jack Hardy and G. William Bissеtt, of Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown & Thompson, Miami, for appellee Firestone.
Gerald A. McGill, of Southworth & McGill, Pensacola, for appellee Ford Motor Co.
Thomas P. Schult, of Lathrop, Koontz & Norquist, Kansas City, Mo., and J. Dixon Bridgers, III, Carоl R. Tierney, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Pensacola, for appellee The Budd Co.
Cathy Jackson Burris, Ft. Lauderdale, for amicus curiae Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Edward T. O'Donnell, of Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole, Miami, for amicus curiae The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.
*802 Sharon Lee Stedman, of Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss & Burke, Orlando, for amicus curiae, Florida Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellants seek review of a summary final judgment entered in a products liability action for a 1982 injury, asserting that the court erred by applying sectiоn 95.031(2), Florida Statutes. We affirm the order appealеd.
Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1982),[1] provided that:
Actions for products liability ... must be begun .. . within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product tо its original purchaser... .
Appellants' action involvеs an injury which occurred more than twelve years after the allegedly defective product was deliverеd to the original purchaser, and the action was thus not begun within the period prescribed by section 95.031(2). Both the injury and the commencement of the action ocсurred subsequent to the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co.,
Appellants contend that Pullum should not be given effect in thе present case, since appellants' action was filed after the decision in Battilla but prior to the decision in Pullum. However, appellants have shown no substantial inequity or unfairness which would rеsult upon application of the Pullum ruling, nor does the decision in Pullum suggest that it should be limitеd to prospective application.[2] As indicated in Florida Forest & Parks Service v. Strickland,
The order appealed is affirmed.
SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] The statute has since been amended. See Chapter 86-272, Laws of Florida (1986).
[2] Appellants' only suggestion of reliance on Battilla is the financial cost of initiating litigation. This assertion does not encompass a detrimental chаnge in legal position, and such financial reliance does not preclude application of thе Pullum decision in the present case. We note alsо that in denying rehearing the supreme court in Pullum rejectеd a contention that the decision should not apply to a pending action.
[3] Several cases in federal district court have addressed this issue with varying results. E.g. compare Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G.,