Cases from cite.case.law:

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. PRODUCTS LIABILITY, 160 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2015)

. . . effect of the strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see F.S. 672.318 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. PRODUCTS LIABILITY, 91 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2012)

. . . Eor-the effect ■ of strict-liability doctrine-en-claims of-warranty previously requiring-privity, see ■§ 672.318 . . .

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS- CIVIL CASES NO., 872 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2004)

. . . For the effect of strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see § 672.318 . . .

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS- CIVIL CASES, 778 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2000)

. . . For the effect of strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see § 672.318 . . .

In MASONITE CORP. HARDBOARD SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION., 21 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. La. 1998)

. . . . § 672.318 (providing for extension of warranties to certain third-party beneficiaries). . . . See Fla.Stat. § 672.318. . . . See Fla.Stat. § 672.318 comment-3. And that is where this analysis must go. . . .

THE OCEAN RITZ OF DAYTONA CONDOMINIUM, v. GGV ASSOCIATES, LTD,, 710 So. 2d 702 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 672.318, Florida Statutes. . . .

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS- CIVIL CASES NO., 711 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1998)

. . . Whether or not Smith was in privity with either defendant, see § 672.318, Fla. . . .

DOWNRIVER INTERNISTS, a v. HARRIS CORPORATION, a a a, 929 F.2d 1147 (6th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 672.318. The Center is a partnership claiming economic injury. . . .

C. KRAMER W. v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION,, 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1988)

. . . remains unaltered where privity of contract exists and in those cases which fall within the scope of § 672.318 . . .

CARLSON v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, 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 . . . The clear language of § 672.318 provides that the implied warranty extends to a buyer’s employee. . . . “buyers” of the product in question, but are rather warranty beneficiaries under Florida Statute § 672.318 . . .

In ASBESTOS LITIGATION. HAMMER, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. WEISSMAN v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. FOW, H. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. FLYNN v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. MOBLEY v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. ALDRICH v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. WALTER v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 679 F. Supp. 1096 (S.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . . § 672.318 (1985). . . .

SUTTON, v. U- HAUL CO. INC, 22 Fla. Supp. 2d 92 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986)

. . . in a personal injury action based upon breach of a seller’s implied warranty is set forth in Section 672.318 . . .

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MONTELLA,, 427 So. 2d 796 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . warranty provisions of Florida’s enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code, sections 672.313 through 672.318 . . .

TAYLOR J. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC. a Co. a, 555 F. Supp. 59 (M.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . in a personal injury action based upon breach of a seller’s implied warranty is circumscribed by § 672.318 . . . purchased the Honda motorcycle from the defendant or that he was within the class of persons indicated in § 672.318 . . . Ivarson, Inc., supra, Taylor would be outside the scope of American Honda’s warranty liability under § 672.318 . . . different, however, if the plaintiffs are merely warranty beneficiaries within the class indicated in § 672.318 . . . Order dated November 3, 1981. . § 672.318, as amended in 1967, states: A seller’s warranty whether express . . .

HARTMAN, v. OPELIKA MACHINE AND WELDING COMPANY, 414 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 672.318, Florida Statutes. . . . .

MCCARTHY, v. FLORIDA LADDER COMPANY, a, 295 So. 2d 707 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . More recently, the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 672.318, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., specifies that an employee . . .

A. BARRY S. v. IVARSON INCORPORATED, a, 249 So. 2d 44 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . appellants would have this court determine is whether plaintiffs-lessees come within the ambit of § 672.318 . . . Together with these two cases, appellants submit that F.S. § 672.318 (1969), F.S.A., should be construed . . . Although appellants also urge this court to consider what may be called the underlying theme in F.S. § 672.318 . . . retailer, employees of the buyer are now expressly named as third-party beneficiaries within F.S. § 672.318 . . . only are appellants not within the category of third-party beneficiaries as contemplated in F.S. § 672.318 . . .