Castle Const. Co. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2488,81-2488 |
| Citation | 425 So.2d 573 |
| Parties | CASTLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY d/b/a Alabama Castle Construction Company, Inc., Appellant, v. HUTTIG SASH & DOOR COMPANY, Longardner & Associates of Florida, Inc., Fort Myers Roofing Company, and J. Foster Pate, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gerald W. Pierce of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for appellant.
Dwight A. Whigham of Bigelow & Winesett, Fort Myers, for appellees Fort Myers Roofing Co. and J. Foster Pate.
Appellant Castle Construction Company contends the trial court erred in (1) denying its third-party claim for indemnity while still holding it responsible for the damages resulting from the negligence of its subcontractor, Fort Myers Roofing Company, and (2) entering a partial summary judgment limiting the liability of J. Foster Pate as personal guarantor of its subcontractor's performance. We agree with appellant's first contention; we reject the second.
Castle, a general contractor, constructed a building for Huttig Sash & Door Company. It subcontracted the roofing to Fort Myers Roofing Company. After construction was completed in the latter part of 1974, the roof started leaking. In November 1978 Huttig, the owner, sued Castle to recover damages. In January 1979 Castle joined Fort Myers Roofing and Pate, guarantor of the subcontractor's performance, as third-party defendants. Castle sought indemnity against its roofing subcontractor alleging that Fort Myers Roofing was solely responsible for the negligent construction of the roof.
The trial court entered judgment against Castle for $255,791.28 for the damages Huttig would incur in replacing the roof, but denied Castle's claim for indemnity against the third-party defendants. Prior to denying Castle's claim for indemnity, the trial court, by partial summary judgment, had limited Castle's recovery against the guarantor to $88,400. This appeal ensued.
In denying Castle's claim for indemnity, the trial court did not articulate any reasons for its decision. Although Fort Myers Roofing and Pate asserted several affirmative defenses in the trial court, on appeal the parties have focused their arguments principally on whether the statute of limitations barred Castle's action for indemnity. We perceive this to be the only issue which merits discussion on the right to indemnity.
Castle argues that the statute of limitations for its indemnity action could not commence until its liability had been determined. Fort Myers Roofing and Pate, on the other hand, argue that the defect in the roof was not latent and, therefore, the statute of limitations began running when construction was completed in the latter part of 1974. They concede that the evidence did not establish that the four-year limit in section 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes, had run prior to Huttig's suit against Castle. Yet, they contend that the four years ended in 1978, thus barring any claim by Castle for indemnity since Castle did not file its third-party action until January 1979.
The right of indemnity is based on principles of equity and inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the latter. Indemnity is allowed only where the indemnitor is solely at fault. It thereby shifts the entire loss from one who, although without active negligence or fault, has been obligated to pay, because of some vicarious or constructive liability, to another who should bear the costs because it was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
...main claim. If Honda had been exonerated of liability, indemnity would not have been appropriate. Castle Constr. Co. v. Huttig Sash and Door Co., 425 So.2d 573, 575 (Fla. 2d D.C.A.1982); Maple Chair Co. v. W.S. Badcock Corp., 385 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1980); Papas v. Kohler Co., Inc., ......
-
Kala Investments, Inc. v. Sklar
...4 A. Patient Care Center v. Ted Hoyer & Co., Inc., 498 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (contribution); Castle Construction Co. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 425 So.2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (indemnity); Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Rojas, 409 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (indemnity); Showel......
-
Scott & Jobalia Const. Co., Inc. v. Halifax Paving, Inc. for Use and Benefit of U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
...v. Insley Manufacturing Corp., 226 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 234 So.2d 122 (Fla.1969); Castle Construction Co. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 425 So.2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Therefore, the statute of limitations in this case only began to run against Halifax on the settlement dat......
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Weaver Aggregate Transp., Inc.
...(citing Mims Crane Service, Inc. v. Insley Mfg. Corp., 226 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d Dist.Ct.App.1969) and Castle Const. Co. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 425 So.2d 573 (Fla. 2d Dist.Ct.App.1982)). No such payments have occurred in this case to date. Summary judgment on this common law indemnity clai......
-
Indemnity actions
...Tampa Wholesale Liquor Co. , Inc. , 573 So.2d 347, 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). 7. Castle Construction Company v. Huttig Sash & Door Company , 425 So.2d 573, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). §6:10.1.3 Elements of Cause of Action — 3rd DCA “Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty ow......