The Lubrizol Corporation and Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc. v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 24, 2020
Docket3D19-2044
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 24, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D19-2054; 3D19-2053;
3D19-2051; 3D19-2048;
3D19-2046; 3D19-2044
Lower Tribunal No. 16-18468
________________
Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc.,
Appellee.
Appeals from a Non-Final Order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Rogers and Eric S. Boos, for
appellants Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation; Atkore International, Inc.; and Tyco
Fire Products, L.P.; Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, and Kelly R.
Melchiondo; Jeffrey J. Lauderdale (Wickliffe, OH), for appellants The Lubrizol
Corporation and Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.; Lee, Hernandez, Landrum &
Carlson, APC, Robert A. Carlson and Courtney Willoughby, for appellant Suffolk
Construction Company, Inc.; Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A., and Jill
Nexon Berman, for appellant Miami Riverfront Partners, LLC; Rumberger, Kirk &
Caldwell, P.A., and Scott M. Sarason, for appellant Georg Fischer Harvel, LLC;
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Therese A. Savona (Orlando), for appellant
Summers Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A., Wm. Allen Bonner and Patrick S. Montoya, for
appellee.
Before SALTER, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation, Atkore International, Inc., Tyco Fire
Products, L.P., Miami Riverfront Partners, LLC, Suffolk Construction Company,
Inc., Summers Fire Sprinklers, Inc., Georg Fischer Harvel, LLC, The Lubrizol
Corporation and Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., appeal the trial court’s non-final
order on class certification permitting Latitude on the River Condominium
Association to bring claims on behalf of the association members for damages
related to the removal and replacement of the building’s defective fire-sprinkler
system.
Latitude sought to certify a class pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.221. The trial court held a certification hearing, reviewed the parties’ submissions
and heard argument regarding the appropriateness of certification. Based on the
evidence, affidavits and proffers presented, the court found that Latitude met its
threshold burden for class certification under Rule 1.221 because the claims related
to matters of common interest affecting the association members in a similar way.
We review the trial court’s grant of class certification for an abuse of
discretion. Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91, 102 (Fla. 2011). See
Biza, Corp. v. Galway Bay Mobile Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 3D18-0631, 2019
WL 6884518, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 18, 2019).
2
Rule 1.221 expressly authorizes condominium associations to “institute,
maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association
members concerning matters of common interest to the members.” Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.221. “[A]s to controversies affecting the matters of common interest . . ., the
condominium association, without more, should be construed to represent the class
composed of its members as a matter of law.” Biza, 2019 WL 6884518, at *4
(quoting The Florida Bar, 353 So. 2d 95, 97 (Fla. 1977)). “[T]he common interest
provision of the rule has been interpreted to permit a class action by the association
for a construction defect located physically within a unit, rather than in the common
elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.” Seawatch at Marathon
Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 610 So. 2d 470, 473 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1992) (citing Alan Becker & Robert Manne, Construction Litigation, in
Florida Condominium Law & Practice § 15.3, at 715–16 (The Florida Bar CLE
1987)). We, therefore, cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding that
damages resulting from the replacement of the fire-sprinkler system throughout the
building were a matter of common interest for purposes of certification at this stage
of the litigation.
Affirmed.
3