(1)(a) In a civil action alleging an asbestos or silica claim, a product seller other than a manufacturer is liable to a plaintiff only if the plaintiff establishes that:
1.a. The product that allegedly caused the harm that is the subject of the complaint was sold, rented, or leased by the product seller;
b. The product seller failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to the product; and
c. The failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate cause of the harm to the exposed person;
2.a. The product seller made an express warranty applicable to the product that allegedly caused the harm that is the subject of the complaint, independent of any express warranty made by the manufacturer as to the same product;
b. The product failed to conform to the warranty; and
c. The failure of the product to conform to the warranty caused the harm to the exposed person; or
3.a. The product seller engaged in intentional wrongdoing, as determined under the law of this state; and
b. The intentional wrongdoing caused the harm that is the subject of the complaint.
(b) For the purpose of sub-subparagraph (a)1.b., a product seller may not be considered to have failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to a product based upon an alleged failure to inspect the product, if:
1. The failure occurred because there was no reasonable opportunity to inspect the product; or
2. The inspection, in the exercise of reasonable care, would not have revealed the aspect of the product which allegedly caused the exposed person’s impairment.
(2) In a civil action alleging an asbestos or silica claim, a person engaged in the business of renting or leasing a product is not liable for the tortious act of another solely by reason of ownership of that product.
History.—s. 8, ch. 2005-274; s. 108, ch. 2006-1.