Linpro Florida, Inc. v. Almandinger
| Decision Date | 12 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-3307,91-3307 |
| Citation | 603 So.2d 666 |
| Parties | LINPRO FLORIDA INC., Appellant, v. Richard ALMANDINGER and Meisner Electric Inc. of Florida, Appellees. 603 So.2d 666, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1879 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
C. Daniel Petrie, Jr., of Esler, Petrie & Salkin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Shirley Jean McEachern and Daniel M. Bacchi of Sellars, Supran, Cole, Marion & Espy, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Meisner Electric.
We reverse to allow the defendant to plead a third party claim for both contractual and common law indemnity. The trial court dismissed appellant's third party claim seeking indemnification under all theories. While we agree with the trial court that Linpro's claim for indemnification under the release did not state a cause of action, we cannot agree that the contractual and common law indemnification theories were equally misplaced. Thus we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
The apparent basis for the trial court's dismissal of the third party claim for contractual indemnification on pleading grounds under rule 1.140(b)(6) was that the jury may ultimately resolve plaintiff's claim against Linpro by finding it actively, rather than merely passively, negligent. That is certainly true, but it is entirely irrelevant to whether Linpro should be allowed to plead contractual indemnification against Meisner's negligence, if that instead be the jury's finding.
Rule 1.180(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, says:
At any time after the commencement of the action a defendant may have a summons and complaint served on a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant * * *. [e.s.]
The words "or may be" were undeniably intended to cover the situation, as here, where the third party's indemnification liability turns on the jury's precise resolution of the main claim. Meisner's contract with Linpro requires Meisner to indemnify Linpro for Meisner's negligence but not for Linpro's own fault. 1 Hence Linpro is entitled to recover from Meisner if the jury finds Linpro passively negligent and Meisner actively so.
This conclusion is essentially identical to the holding in L.M. Duncan & Sons Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 478 So.2d 816 (Fla.1985), where the court said:
[Duncan's] first point is that the City cannot seek indemnification under the contractual provision because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rea v. Barton Protective Services, Inc., 94-2463
...bound by the allegations of the original complaint and the characterization of conduct set forth therein. See Linpro Florida, Inc. v. Almandinger, 603 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Home Indem. Co. v. Edwards, 360 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), decision quashed on other grounds, Houdaille ......
-
Safecare Medical Center v. Howard
...843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. White Motor Corp., 316 So.2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Linpro Florida, Inc. v. Almandinger, 603 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). This liberality fulfills a purpose of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.180, to bring all interested parties into......
-
United Rentals, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
...someone else's negligence (here Nathaniel Jackson's) which does not run afoul of Section 725.06. See Linpro Fla. Inc. v. Almandinger, 603 So. 2d 666, 667 n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) (holding an indemnification provision unenforceable under Section 725.06 to the extent that it sought inde......
-
Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice
...See Broward Marine, Inc. v. New England Marine Corp. of Del., 386 So.2d 70, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Linpro Fla. Inc. v. Almandinger, 603 So.2d 666, 666–67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Similarly, Fish Tale asserted a viable claim for contribution against the third-party defendants based upon their po......