Lewinter

Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc.

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 749·26 Cal. App. 4th 1214·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 305·94 Daily Journal DAR 10160·1994 A.M.C. 2745
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 20, 1994B074837California3,067 words

Opinion

Opinion

Masterson, J.

— Richard and Marion Lewinter (plaintiffs) appeal from the summary judgment entered in favor of Genmar Industries, Inc. We affirm.

Background

In 1989, plaintiffs purchased a used 61-foot motor yacht from a private party for recreational use. On March 14, 1989, while plaintiffs were at sea, the yacht experienced a catastrophic hull failure allegedly caused by defective lamination. The damaged yacht did not sink, but was taken ashore for repairs.

On March 13, 1992, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Genmar, the manufacturer of the yacht. Therein, plaintiffs asserted causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.

On November 6, 1992, Genmar filed a motion for summary judgment. Genmar argued that this case was governed by admiralty law and, relying on such law as set forth in East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (1986) 476 U.S. 858 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 865 , 106 S.Ct. 2295 ] (East River), urged that a manufacturer could not be liable in tort where only economic damages to the yacht were sustained. The summary judgment motion was granted on January 8, 1992, and a judgment in favor of Genmar was entered on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.