Abbott Labs., Inc. v. General Elec. Capital
Decision Date | 19 May 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 5D99-2129.,5D99-2129. |
Citation | 765 So.2d 737 |
Parties | ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL, etc., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jose E. Martinez of Martinez & Gutierrez, Miami, and Robert S. Hoofman of Pohl & Short, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.
Robert J. Stovash and Matthew W. Bennett of Morlan & Stovash, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. ("Abbott") appeals a summary final judgment granted to General Electric Capital Corporation ("GECC"). Abbott contends that the contractual obligations enforced by the summary judgment are barred by the statute of limitations of section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).
The facts are undisputed. On November 1, 1988, GECC and Abbott entered a Vendor Program Agreement (VPA) in which GECC was to provide customer financing in the form of leases and/or secured financing to support Abbott's domestic sales of medical equipment. The VPA provided:
Ignoring the contractual restraint that there would be no extraneous agreements between Abbott and a customer for whom GECC would provide financing, Abbott entered into a separate agreement with customer Jeff Goodgame, M.D., P.A., in 1992. This separate agreement was entered into without GECC's knowledge. The separate agreement provided that Abbott would refund the purchase price of medical equipment to Goodgame or pay the balance on Goodgame's obligation to GECC if certain financial downfalls impaired Goodgame's medical practice.
Abiding by the terms of the VPA, GECC purchased medical equipment from Abbott and Goodgame leased the medical equipment from GECC. A personal guaranty (the "Goodgame Contract"), was also executed by Goodgame.
More than four years later, Goodgame defaulted on his obligation to GECC and the latter filed a breach of contract claim against Goodgame. Goodgame responded with a counterclaim against GECC for fraud in the inducement, alleging that GECC, together with Abbott, fraudulently induced Goodgame to enter into the Goodgame contract by making the representations, warranties and guaranties contained in the separate agreement with Abbott. Goodgame also filed a third party action against Abbott alleging that the conditions in its separate agreement had occurred and that Abbott was obligated to re-purchase the medical equipment.
GECC then amended its complaint to include two counts against Abbott, one for breach of the VPA by entering into the separate agreement and one for indemnity under the VPA for any amount which GECC was found to be liable to Goodgame. Both parties moved for summary judgment with Abbott specifically arguing that the applicable five year statute of limitation on contracts1 barred GECC's causes of actions against Abbott. The trial court did not agree with Abbott, finding that GECC's causes of action against Abbott were not barred by the statute of limitations prescribed by section 95.11(2)(b), because the discovery rule was applicable. Under the discovery rule, the cause of action does not accrue until the breach is discovered by the suing party. The trial court then entered the summary final judgment in favor of GECC and against Abbott, finding that Abbott was liable to GECC on both the breach of contract and contract indemnification claims. Although Abbott's breach of the VPA occurred more than five years before GECC...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Alabama's discovery rule only applies to fraud actions and does not apply to contract claims); Abbott Labs., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital , 765 So. 2d 737, 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (holding legislature did not intend to provide a discovery rule for breach of contract); Godwin v. Mizpah ......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
...district courts of appeal. See Murciano v. Garcia, 958 So.2d 423, 423–24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. General Elec. Capital, 765 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Mettler, Inc. v. Ellen Tracy, Inc., 648 So.2d 253, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Knowles v. C. I. T. Corp., 346 ......
-
Fagan v. Central Bank of Cyprus
...which it has a right to enforce, breach of that contract, and damages flowing from such breach. Abbott Labs., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital, 765 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Carpenter Contractors of Am., Inc. v. Fastener Corp. of Am., Inc., 611 So.2d 564, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Here, ......
-
DEGIRMENCI v. SAPPHIRE-FORT LAUDERDALE, LLLP
...of a breach of contract action are: "1) a valid contract; 2) a material breach; and 3) damages." Abbott Lab., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital, 765 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Thus, the failure to allege damages would be fatal to Plaintiff's breach of contract claims premised on Sapphire ......
-
Indemnity actions
...Actions §6:20 §6:20.2 Statute of Limitations Five Years. Fla. Stat. §95.11(2)(b); Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. General Elec. Capital , 765 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). §6:20.3 References 1. 12 Fla. Jur. 2d Contribution, Indemnity, and Subrogation §§37–40 (2005). 2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.170(g), ......
-
Contract cases
...P.A. v. L. Offs. of E. Clay Parker , 160 So. 3d 955, 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). 2. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. General Electric Capital , 765 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). §3:10.2 Statute of Limitations Fla. Stat. §95.11(2)(b)(five years for written contract); §95.11(3)(k)(four years f......