Maryland Cas. Co. v. State Dept. of General Services, 85-2027
| Decision Date | 21 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2027,85-2027 |
| Citation | 489 So.2d 57,11 Fla. L. Weekly 705 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 705 MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and the Florida Board of Regents, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jonathan L. Alpert, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Thomas M. Beason, of Moyle, Flannigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A., Tallahassee, for Dept. of Gen. Services.
Sylvia H. Walbolt and Timothy A. Hunt, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for Florida Bd. of Regents.
In this multiparty lawsuit, one of the defendants appeals the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion to compel arbitration. We affirm.
The lawsuit arose out of events surrounding the construction of the Sun Dome at the University of South Florida. The Florida Department of General Services and Florida Board of Regents (the State) entered into a construction contract with the general contractor, Austin-Westshore Construction Company. In turn, Austin-Westshore contracted with various subcontractors, including defendant, Pinter Contracting Company. The contract between Pinter and Austin-Westshore required Pinter to obtain liability insurance. Defendant/appellant, Maryland Casualty Company, provided that insurance.
Many problems apparently arose during the construction of the Sun Dome. Austin-Westshore claimed that these problems had caused Austin-Westshore to incur more costs in the construction than had been anticipated. Austin-Westshore further claimed that the State should pay Austin-Westshore for these extra costs because parties other than Austin-Westshore had been at fault. An arbitration proceeding was conducted among various of the involved parties, not including Pinter or Maryland Casualty. The State eventually agreed to pay a certain sum to Austin-Westshore. The State then filed this suit to recoup that money from the parties who had allegedly caused the cost overruns. Among others, the State sued Pinter and also sued Maryland Casualty as Pinter's insurer.
In response to the lawsuit, Maryland Casualty made a demand to arbitrate the claim, alleging that the construction contracts required arbitration of all disputes. The parties apparently concede that Pinter acceded to the lawsuit by making no demand for arbitration, but Maryland Casualty argues that it has a right to arbitration not derivative of or dependent on any such right of Pinter. The trial court denied Maryland Casualty's motion to compel arbitration, and this appeal followed.
We affirm the trial court's order on the ground that Maryland Casualty was merely an incidental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership
...have employed. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jelac Co., 505 So.2d 37 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Maryland Casualty Co. v. State Dept. of General Services, 489 So.2d 57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), rev. dismissed, 494 So.2d 1151 ...
-
Jensen v. Rice, 3D01-690.
...177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir.1999), we do not find any of these applicable to this case. See Id.; Maryland Cas. Co. v. State Dep't of Gen. Services, 489 So.2d 57, 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (third party is an intended beneficiary only if parties to contract intended to primarily and directly bene......
-
Riscorp, Inc. v. Norman
...872 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Jelac Corp., 505 So.2d 37 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Maryland Cas. Co. v. State Dep't of Gen. Servs., 489 So.2d 57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). In support of its argument that Albrecht and the Trust are not third-party beneficiaries of the Merger......
-
Maccaferri Gabions, Inc. v. Dynateria Inc.
... Page 1431 ... 91 F.3d 1431 ... 41 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,980 ... MACCAFERRI GABIONS, ... (Maccaferri), a materialman, sued general contractor Wilkinson & Jenkins Construction Co., ... notice: "[I]t is crucial that the notice state a claim directly against the general contractor, ... party through whom he claims.' " Maryland Casualty Co. v. Department of Gen. Servs., 489 ... ...