ICC Chemical Corp. v. Freeman, 93-2555

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation640 So.2d 92
Decision Date05 July 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93-2555,93-2555
Parties19 Fla. L. Weekly D1436 ICC CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Michael J. FREEMAN, etc., Appellees.

Jeffrey C. Roth, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Judy D. Shapiro, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ICC Chemical Corporation (ICC) appeals from a partial final summary judgment in favor of Michael J. Freeman (Freeman). We affirm.

ICC contracted with Pacific Trading Overseas Corporation (Pacific Trading) to purchase polypropylene. Freeman, acting as attorney for Pacific Trading, notified ICC via facsimile that Pacific Trading had obtained the product but it would only perform under the contracts if ICC agreed to pay a higher price. ICC agreed to pay the higher price, and subsequently renegotiated the contracts. After Pacific Trading delivered the goods, ICC refused to pay the increased purchase price and paid only the price originally agreed upon. Pacific Trading filed an arbitration claim against ICC to enforce the contract modifications. ICC counterclaimed for breach of contract, claiming economic coercion and bad faith, alleging that the contract modifications were procured by fraud and bad faith partly through the facsimile notification of price increases that Freeman sent to ICC on Pacific Trading's behalf. The arbitration concluded in favor of Pacific Trading, finding that ICC owed Pacific Trading $212,000 on the contracts as modified. This award was later approved and confirmed by a United States District Court in ICC Chemical Corp. against Pacific Trading Corp., No. 92 Civ. 7569 (S.D.N.Y. March 24, 1993). In the instant action, ICC brings suit against Freeman individually for alleged fraudulent misrepresentations contained in Pacific Trading's facsimile notification of price increases. On Freeman's motion, the trial court granted summary judgment against ICC on the basis that ICC's fraud action was barred by res judicata as a consequence of the prior arbitration adjudication. ICC appeals.

The issue in this case is whether res judicata operates to bar ICC's fraud claim against Freeman individually, based on the prior arbitration in favor of Pacific Trading, for whom Freeman worked. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties and their privies, and constitutes a bar...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Tyson v. Viacom, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 Enero 2005
    ...to the actions, and 4) identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom the claim is made." ICC Chem. Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The rule against splitting a cause of action is an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata. Froman v. Kirland, 753......
  • Hoechst Celanese Corp v. Fry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 19 Marzo 1997
    ...raised. See Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8, 11-12 (Fla.1984); Hinchee v. Fisher, 93 So.2d 351, 353 (Fla.1957); ICC Chemical Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Thus, the appellees were correct in their assertion that an order which merely dismissed the cause and did not e......
  • NTCH-Wa, Inc. v. Zte Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 25 Abril 2019
    ...Florida gives preclusive effect to arbitration awards confirmed by federal district courts. See ICC Chem. Corp. v. Freeman , 640 So.2d 92, 92–93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (per curiam). Under Florida claim-preclusion law, "[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the sam......
  • Agripost v. Miami-Dade County, AGRI-DAD
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 15 Noviembre 1999
    ...all matters that could have been raised in the prior suit. See Hoechst Celanese Corp., 693 So. 2d at 1006 n.9; ICC Chem. Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The County claims that res judicata barred the takings claim because Agripost actually raised (and the Circuit Cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT