Villar v. Olazabal

PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint because as a matter of law the impact rule bars these causes of action and the facts of this case do not fall within the narrow exceptions to the impact rule. See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1995); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985); Sguros v. Biscayne Recreation Dev. Co., 528 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 880 (Fla.1988). Affirmed.