JULIEN P. BENJAMIN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BLACKWELL BURNER COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of third-party indemnity action by equipment distributor against product manufacturer, holding that manufacturer's prior settlement and plaintiff's allegation of active negligence do not preclude indemnity claim based on vicarious liability for the manufacturer's defect.
A distributor sued for injuries from an allegedly defective product may maintain a third-party indemnity action against the manufacturer even where the manufacturer previously settled a similar action and the complaint alleges only active negligence by the distributor.
[1] A distributor's third-party indemnity claim against a manufacturer for a defective product is not precluded by the manufacturer's prior settlement of a similar action or…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulien P. Benjamin Equipment Company, a distributor, was sued for personal injuries allegedly caused by a defective product manufactured by Blackwell …
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 Manufacturer Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The trial court dismissed a third-party indemnity action brought by the appellant, Julien P. Benjamin Equipment Company, which had been sued for personal injuries as the distributor of an allegedly defective product, against the appellee, Blackwell Burner Company, the manufacturer of the product. We reverse on the holdings that, contrary to Blackwell’s contentions, neither the manufacturer’s settlement of a prior action brought against it by the same plaintiff, Rebhan Leasing Corp. v. Trias, 419 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1983), nor the fact that the plaintiff’s complaint in this case alleges only active negligence by the distributor,1 Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Brown, 297 So. 2d 843 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), precludes the maintenance of the indemnity claim on the presently asserted ground that the distributor’s liability, if any, arises only vicariously for a defect created in the product by the manufacturer. Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979); Pender v. Skillcraft Industries, Inc., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Reversed.
. Such a finding as the basis for liability would of course make indemnity unavailable as a matter of law. Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Safecare Med. Ctr. v. Donald C. Howard, D.O., 670 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…624 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1993). Safecare is barred from attempting to characterize its settlement in a way that was outside the realm of legal possibility at the time it was made. Safecare relies on Julien P. Benjamin Equip. Co. v. Blackwell Burner Co., 450 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), to avoid dismissal. There, an injured plaintiff sued a distributer of a defective product. The dis-tributer brought a third party indemnity action against the manufacturer. The trial court dismissed the third party claim. The Thi…
-
Aerovias, S.A. v. AIR Haiti, S.A., 680 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…laint asserts that its liability to Langer arises only vicariously from Air Haiti’s negligence. As a consequence, Aerovías’ maintenance of its indemnity claim against Air Haiti is not precluded. Julien P. Benjamin Equip. Co. v. Blackwell Burner Co., 450 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Indeed, we fail to discern that any just conclusion would result by precluding indemnification where an indemnitee is innocent of any active negligence, but the indem-nitor is not. As material issues of fact remain unresolved, w…
-
Mellish Enters., Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 678 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…nt provides the prerequisite for an indemnification action, not payment of the judgment. See Flagship Nat’l Bank v. Gray Distribution Sys., Inc., 485 So. 2d 1336, 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In Julien P. Benjamin Equipment Co. v. Blackwell Burner Co., 450 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), a third party sued a distributor alleging damages as a result of a defective product. The trial court dismissed the distributor’s action against the manufacturer for indemnification. In reversing the trial court’s order of dismis…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Pender v. Skillcraft Indus., Inc., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brown, 297 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Rebhan Leasing Corp. v. Trias, 419 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)