Lorf v. Indiana Ins. Co., 82-1201

• Decision Date: 09 February 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-1201,82-1201
• Citation: 426 So.2d 1225
• Parties: Anna Mae LORF and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellants, v. INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee of Alco Industries, Inc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1225

426 So.2d 1225

Anna Mae LORF and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellants, v. INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee of Alco Industries, Inc., Appellee.

No. 82-1201.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Feb. 9, 1983.

William A. Donovan of Napier & Donovan, Naples, for appellants.

Richard L. Wassenberg of Ponzoli & Wassenberg, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

BERANEK, Judge.

This appeal involves a three car accident and the multiple suits arising from it. The trial court found that the theory of collateral estoppel was not applicable to bar the action. We disagree and reverse.

After being forced off the road by a van driven by Harry Schneider and owned by Alco Industries, Inc., appellant, Anna Mae Lorf, struck a vehicle driven by Robert Reese. Both Reese and Fannie Livingston, a passenger in the Lorf vehicle, were injured. The accident having occurred in Collier County, Reese filed suit in that county against Schneider, Alco Industries, Inc., and its insurer, Indiana Insurance Company. These defendants then filed a third party claim against Lorf and her insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, for contribution. The case went to trial before a jury. The court directed a verdict in favor of Lorf finding that she had not been negligent, and Reese recovered a judgment solely against the defendants, Schneider, Alco, and Indiana Insurance Company. After this litigation was concluded, Fannie Livingston made a claim against Schneider, Alco, and Indiana Insurance, which was voluntarily settled by Indiana's payment of $100,000 to Livingston. Indiana Insurance, as subrogee of Alco, then sued Lorf and her carrier, Allstate, for contribution based specifically on Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1981). Lorf moved for summary judgment on the theory of collateral estoppel but the trial court denied this motion. This issue was again raised during and after trial, but in each instance the court found the theory inapplicable. The issues of Lorf's negligence and Alco's negligence were submitted to the jury which found Lorf 50% at fault. The trial court entered final judgment against Lorf for $50,000 and this appeal resulted.

We view this case as controlled by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the inconsistent verdicts highlight the exact result which the doctrine is designed to avoid. The essential elements of collateral estoppel are that the parties and issues be identical and that a matter be fully litigated and determined resulting in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction....