Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2456,87-2456 |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA AVIATION FUELING COMPANY, INC., Appellee. 578 So.2d 296, 16 Fla. L. Week. 623 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kelley Drye & Warren, including Smathers & Thompson, and Christian D. Keedy, Miami, for appellant.
Marlow, Shofi, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Lowe & Adler and Joseph H. Lowe, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and COPE, JJ.
Metropolitan Dade County appeals an adverse final summary judgment in its third party action against Florida Aviation Fueling Company, Inc. (FAFCO) for indemnity. We reverse.
Dade County owns an aircraft refueling facility adjacent to Miami International Airport. It leased the fueling facility to FAFCO, which assumed responsibility for all operations, maintenance and repair. The lease between the county and FAFCO contained an indemnity provision which states:
The Lessee shall indemnify and save the County harmless from any and all claims, liability, losses and causes of actions which may arise out of the operation of Lessee's business under this Lease Agreement. The Lessee shall pay all claims and losses of any nature whatsoever in connection therewith, and shall defend all suits in the name of the County when applicable, and shall pay all costs and judgments which may issue thereon.
In 1983 FAFCO discovered a leak in the underground pipes at the fuel facility. A temporary fueling system was devised using an above-ground flexible rubber hose for transferring fuel from storage tanks into the aircraft fuel trucks. During the use of the temporary assembly, FAFCO employee James Myles was thrown from the top of a fuel truck and was rendered quadriplegic.
Myles brought suit against a number of defendants, including Dade County. He alleged that the temporary fueling device was improperly designed and dangerous for the pumping of fuel at high pressure. The plaintiff alleged in substance that the device did not comply with applicable standards and was inherently unstable. The plaintiff alleged that the system lacked an appropriate "dead man" control for emergency shutdown, and that previous accidents with the temporary system had made all of these matters obvious.
With respect to Dade County, the plaintiff alleged two bases for liability. First, the plaintiff alleged that the fueling system was an ultrahazardous activity for which the County, as the landowner, would be vicariously liable even though it had relinquished possession of the premises. See Mortgage Guarantee Ins. Corp. v. Stewart, 427 So.2d 776, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 436 So.2d 101 (Fla.1983); Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc., 385 So.2d 676, 679-80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Second, the plaintiff alleged that the County had actual knowledge of the temporary fueling system and knew or should have known of its dangerousness. The plaintiff alleged that the County was, in light of that knowledge, negligent in failing to take steps to correct the situation. See Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So.2d 1328 (Fla.1981).
Pursuant to the indemnity clause of the lease, the County demanded that FAFCO defend the County in the litigation. FAFCO refused and the County undertook its own defense. The County filed a third-party complaint against FAFCO, seeking indemnity for its expenses of defense and for any sums it was obligated to pay plaintiff.
The County proceeded to defend against the plaintiff's claim. Prior to trial, the County moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion. 1 On the eve of trial, the other defendants settled, leaving the County as the only remaining defendant. The County then settled, paying $700,000 to the plaintiff.
FAFCO moved for summary judgment on the County's claim for indemnity. FAFCO argued that the County had been negligent and that it was therefore precluded from indemnification (a) because the indemnity clause did not provide for the indemnification of the County by FAFCO for the County's own negligence; 2 and (b) because ngeligence on the part of the County would bar a claim for common law indemnity. See Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979). The trial court granted FAFCO's motion and the County has appealed.
We first consider whether FAFCO had a duty to defend the County against the plaintiff's claims. We conclude that it did. Plaintiff asserted two theories of liability against the County. Under one theory, the County was negligent, while under the other theory, the County was vicariously liable without fault. The strict liability claim was covered by the indemnification clause, while the negligence claim was not. 3
We follow the ordinary rule that when a complaint contains a covered claim and a claim which is not covered by the indemnity agreement, then the duty to defend extends to the entire lawsuit. See American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. v. Miami Leasing & Rentals, Inc., 362 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Baron Oil Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 470 So.2d 810, 813-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Logozzo v. Kent Ins. Co., 464 So.2d 605, 606-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. Maule Indus., Inc. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corp., 323 So.2d 631, 632-33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (). See generally J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Zack Co., 232 So.2d 447, 450 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 237 So.2d 764 (Fla.1970). We therefore reverse the summary judgment on the issue of duty to defend and direct that judgment be entered for the County on that issue.
Next we turn to the question of whether FAFCO is required to indemnify the County for the $700,000 settlement. FAFCO's motion for summary judgment was based solely on the mistaken assertion that the County was seeking indemnity for its own negligence. As already stated, in reality plaintiff proceeded against the County on a claim for vicarious liability as well as negligence. Under the indemnity clause at issue here, the County is entitled to indemnity for the former, but not the latter, see Charles Poe Masonry, Inc., 374 So.2d at 489, upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 610 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), rev. denied, 621 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1993); Metro Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Co., 578 So.2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 589 So.2d 290 (Fla.1991); West American Ins. Co. v. Silverman, 378 So.2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 19......
-
Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill. v. Royal Oak Enters.
...Cir.1989). 34. See, e.g., Herrera v. C.A. Seguros Catatumbo, 844 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Metro. Dade County v. Fla. Aviation Fueling Co., 578 So.2d 296, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("the party seeking indemnification has the burden to show that the settlement, or portions thereof, fel......
-
Masonite Corp. Hardboard Siding Prods. Litigation
...to its vicarious liability to the homeowners, and (2) that the settlement was reasonable. Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Co., 578 So.2d 296, 298 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1991). The indemnity claim is defeated if plaintiff voluntarily settled, but in fact had no vicarious liab......
-
Nelson v. Johnson
...show settlement is reasonable and associated with the indemnitee's potential liability); Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Company, Inc., 578 So.2d 296, 298 (Fla.Ct.App.1991) (holding vicariously liable party may claim indemnity from responsible party upon proof of its po......
-
Indemnity actions
...of Action — 2nd DCA [No citation for this edition.] See Also 1. Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Company, Inc. , 578 So.2d 296, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied , 589 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1991), rev. denied , 589 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1991) (“Under that decision, when a settleme......