The First District Court of Appeal recently issued a ruling in Harbor Landing Condo. Ass’n v. Harbor Landing, LLC, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D265a (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a condominium association’s claim for breach of statutory implied warranty under section § 718.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2010), against a manufacturer of a coating used on the condominium’s exterior railings because the manufacturer was not a “supplier” of the railings under this statute.

Section 718.203(2), Fla. Stat. governs condominium warranties and states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he contractor, and all subcontractors and suppliers, grant to the developer and to the purchaser of each unit implied warranties of fitness as to the work performed or materials supplied by them . . . .”  Based on the statute, the court found dismissal was appropriate because a separate entity, not the manufacturer, supplied the railings for the condominium project, and because the manufacturer had no knowledge of or direct connection to the project.  The court rejected the condominium association's argument that “manufacturers” should mean “suppliers” under the statute because the Legislature had not indicated its intent to do so.  However, the court noted that a manufacturer could be considered a “supplier” under the statute if the manufacturer actually supplies materials for a project.  Because the manufacturer did not supply anything for the condominium project the appellate court ruled that dismissal was appropriate.