Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree, No. 42739

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtBOYD; ROBERTS; ERVIN; DEKLE; McCAIN; ADKINS, J., dissents and agrees with McCAIN
Citation284 So.2d 389
PartiesMAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., and Johnny Dunlap, Petitioners, v. Joan L. ROUNTREE and David R. Rountree et al., Respondents.
Decision Date26 September 1973
Docket NumberNo. 42739

Page 389

284 So.2d 389
MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., and Johnny Dunlap, Petitioners,
v.
Joan L. ROUNTREE and David R. Rountree et al., Respondents.
No. 42739.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 26, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1973.

John R. Beranek of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Ronald E. Jones, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

BOYD, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 264 So.2d 445. Our jurisdiction is based on conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed and Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Company, 1 and Bill Currie Ford, Inc. v. Cash. 2

Plaintiff Rountree, respondent herein, was severely injured in a three-car collision. The defendants Walker and Woods were the owner and driver of a Pontiac automobile which struck plaintiff's car and the defendants, Maule Industries and Johnny Dunlap, were the owner and driver of a cement truck which also struck plaintiff's car. A verdict and judgment was entered against all defendants in the amount of $300,000.00. Prior to trial, counsel for Maule and Dunlap moved to produce a certain agreement commonly known as a 'Mary Carter Agreement' which counsel believed to exist between the plaintiffs and the defendants Walker and Woods. The trial court denied the pretrial motion to produce, and after entry of judgment, on post-trial motion, the agreement in question was produced and forms part of the record on appeal.

Page 390

On appeal, the District Court found that the trial court's failure to require pretrial production of the agreement constituted error but that this error was not prejudicial to the defendants Maule and Dunlap. The agreement in question, patterned after the one in Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Company, Supra, provided that Woods and Walker would continue in active defense of the litigation, but that their financial responsibility would be limited in accordance with the agreement. In this regard, the agreement provided that if the verdict were to be returned against Woods and Walker solely, they could satisfy the judgment entered thereon by paying the plaintiff $10,435.00 plus taxable costs, but that if the verdict were returned against all of the defendants, no contribution whatever would be required from Woods and Walker or their insurance carrier, and plaintiffs would look solely to the other defendants for satisfaction of the judgment. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Collings v. City First Mortg. Servs., LLC, Nos. 66527–8–I, 66820–0–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • November 18, 2013
    ...Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla.1993) (holding Mary Carter agreements void and inadmissible); Maule Indus., Inc. v. Rountree, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973); [317 P.3d 1054]Ratterree v. Bartlett, 238 Kan. 11, 707 P.2d 1063 (1985). But we concluded that listing parallel positions taken b......
  • Collings v. City First Mortg. Servs., LLC, Nos. 66527–8–I, 66820–0–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • July 29, 2013
    ...v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla.1993) (holding Mary Carter agreements void and inadmissible); Maule Indus., Inc. v. Rountree, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973); Ratterree v. Bartlett, 238 Kan. 11, 707 P.2d 1063 (1985). But we concluded that listing parallel positions taken by the plaintiff and the im......
  • Soria v. Sierra Pacific Airlines, Inc., Nos. 15817
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 26, 1986
    ...by the Florida Court of Appeals in Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree, 264 So.2d 445, 446 N. 1 (Fla.App.1972), reversed on other grounds, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973). It arose from an agreement popularized in Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla.App.1967). Today the term "Mary Cart......
  • C & K Lord, Inc. v. Carter, No. 600
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 4, 1988
    ...against the nonagreeing defendant or defendants. [ Maule Indus., Inc. v. Rountree, 264 So.2d 445, 446, n. 1 (Fla.Dist.App.1972), rev'd, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973) It is probably safe to say that no two pacts dubbed "Mary Carter Agreement" have been alike. However, three basic features seem to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Collings v. City First Mortg. Servs., LLC, Nos. 66527–8–I, 66820–0–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • November 18, 2013
    ...Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla.1993) (holding Mary Carter agreements void and inadmissible); Maule Indus., Inc. v. Rountree, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973); [317 P.3d 1054]Ratterree v. Bartlett, 238 Kan. 11, 707 P.2d 1063 (1985). But we concluded that listing parallel positions taken b......
  • Collings v. City First Mortg. Servs., LLC, Nos. 66527–8–I, 66820–0–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • July 29, 2013
    ...v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla.1993) (holding Mary Carter agreements void and inadmissible); Maule Indus., Inc. v. Rountree, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973); Ratterree v. Bartlett, 238 Kan. 11, 707 P.2d 1063 (1985). But we concluded that listing parallel positions taken by the plaintiff and the im......
  • Soria v. Sierra Pacific Airlines, Inc., Nos. 15817
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 26, 1986
    ...by the Florida Court of Appeals in Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree, 264 So.2d 445, 446 N. 1 (Fla.App.1972), reversed on other grounds, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973). It arose from an agreement popularized in Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla.App.1967). Today the term "Mary Cart......
  • C & K Lord, Inc. v. Carter, No. 600
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 4, 1988
    ...against the nonagreeing defendant or defendants. [ Maule Indus., Inc. v. Rountree, 264 So.2d 445, 446, n. 1 (Fla.Dist.App.1972), rev'd, 284 So.2d 389 (Fla.1973) It is probably safe to say that no two pacts dubbed "Mary Carter Agreement" have been alike. However, three basic features seem to......
  • 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