Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 672.318 (2025)
Third-party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
672.318 Third-party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied.—A seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his or her buyer, who is a guest in his or her home or who is an employee, servant or agent of his or her buyer if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude nor limit the operation of this section.
Note.—s. 2-318, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Taylor v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 59 (M.D. Fla. 1983).
Taylor v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 59 (M.D. Fla. 1983). “The class of possible plaintiffs in a personal injury action based upon breach of a seller’s implied warranty is circumscribed by § 672.318, 5 Fla.Stat., as interpreted by Florida courts.”
Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1988). “[4] The implied warranty cause of action remains unaltered where privity of contract exists and in those cases which fall within the scope of § 672.318, Fla. Stat. (1985), of the Florida Uniform Commercial Code.”
In Re Masonite Corp. Hardboard Siding Prods. Liab. Litig., 21 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. La. 1998). “1989); see also Fla.Stat. § 672.318 (providing for extension of warranties to certain third-party beneficiaries).”
Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. 2005). “Alternative A has been adopted in the following states in addition to Indiana: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,…”
In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-10, 91 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2012). “—These-eharges on product liability issues presuppose that any question of pr-ivity has been resolved-in-fevor of the-claim, — Eor-the effect ■ of strict-liability doctrine-en-claims of-warranty previously requiring-privity, see ■§ 672.318, Fla. Stat. (Í98-7-), — and Kramer v.”
Hartman v. Opelika Mach. & Welding, 414 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Section 672.318, Florida Statutes. [7] As previously noted, the trial court's ruling granting a directed verdict on the strict liability count came at the conclusion of the testimony, after both sides had rested.”
Carlson v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 693 F. Supp. 1073 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “” Florida Statute § 672.318 provides that: [a] seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is a guest in his home or who is an employee, servant or agent of his buyer if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be…”
In Re Asbestos Litig., 679 F. Supp. 1096 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “See Fla. Stat. § 672.318 (1985). Plaintiffs have also alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for implied warranty under Florida common law.”
In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—report No. 13-01 (Prods. Liab.), 160 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2015). “For the effect of the strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see F.S. 672.318 and Kramer, 520 So.2d at 39 & n.”
OCEAN RITZ v. GGV Assocs., Ltd., 710 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). “Section 672.318, Florida Statutes. In the case of services rendered in expectation that non-negotiating third parties will rely on the accuracy of the product, the same implied warranty should apply.”
Stand. Jury Inst.-Civil Cases (No. 02-2), 872 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2004). “For the effect of strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see § 672.318, Florida Statutes Fla. Stat. (1987); Kramer v.”
McCarthy v. Florida Ladder Co., 295 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). “More recently, the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 672.318, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., specifies that an employee of a buyer shall be considered a third party beneficiary of a seller's implied warranty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.