FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AS ASSIGNEE OF SUGAR CANE GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the issue raised in the current appeal is res judicata due to a prior affirmance without opinion in a related case.
Florida Farm Bureau Mutual, as assignee, appealed the dismissal of its third-party complaint seeking indemnification. This complaint arose from a prio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dual Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
ANDREWS, ROBERT LANCE, Associate Judge.
Florida Farm Bureau Mutual appeals the final order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice its third party complaint seeking indemnification from appellee for monies paid in settlement of a personal injury action. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual is the assignee of the claim of Sugar Cane Growers Co-Operative.
In our Case No. 81-336, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida v. Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and Ansel Wright, 418 So. 2d 1304 (Fla.App.1982), Sugar Cane appealed from a Summary Judgment against it, one in favor of Florida Fruit, and a partial Summary Judgment for the Plaintiff. The result of these lower court orders were that Sugar Cane was held not to be an employer of the Plaintiff at the time of the injury, and not immune from suit. In its initial brief in 81-336, Sugar Cane challenged these orders, and raised the identical issue sub judice. The court, in 81-336, ordered Sugar Cane to file a supplemental brief concerning issues of standing and dual employment. Appellee briefed both the initial and supplemental issues. On July 28, 1982, this court affirmed the lower court without opinion.
Following the appeal of the adverse order in 81-336, but prior to this court’s decision, the lower court dismissed the third party complaint, which is now being appealed.
Upon thorough review of the briefs filed in Case No. 81-336, it is apparent that the issue raised before us in this appeal, is the very same as was raised in 81-336. It is therefore unnecessary and inappropriate to reach the merits presented. By our per curiam affirmance in Case No. 81-336, the issue is now res judicata. Department of Legal Affairs v. Fifth District Court of Appeal, 434 So. 2d 310 (Fla.1983); McDaniel v. Musgrove, 427 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Townsend, 544 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…a judgment against Perez by claiming Perez’ shot was intentional? There are numerous examples in Florida jurisprudence to lend credence to Vanguard’s argument. See, e.g., Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Florida Fruit & Vegetable Assn., 436 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (surety bound in subsequent litigation by res judicata); Columbia Casualty Co. v. Hare, 116 Fla. 29, 156 So. 370 (1934) (surety bound by issues settled in prior suit against insured by collateral estoppel); Jones v. Bradley, 366…
-
Blue Cross/Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Inverrary Hotel Corp., 579 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…d stipulating to dismissal of the first suit. Her insurer, by its contract with her, acquired no greater rights, E.g., Jones v. Bradley, 366 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). See also Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fla. Fruit & Vegetable Ass’n, 436 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cook Motor Co. v. Vaughn, 189 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). In Jones, this court stated, the insurer “must exercise such rights under the same conditions and limitations as were binding on the creditor [subrogor], and hence, c…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Legal Affairs v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 434 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1983)
- McDANIEL v. Musgrove, 427 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)