STERLING DRUG, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, L & F PRODUCTS CO., A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
VICTOR LUGO AND RUBY LUGO, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS
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 trial court's order denying leave to file a third-party complaint constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Defendants in a personal injury action sought to file a third-party complaint against a component manufacturer for indemnification and contribution af…
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 Impleader cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, defendant's in a personal injury action, seek a writ of certiorari quashing a trial court order denying their motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. We grant the petition, quash the order and remand for further proceedings.
Defendants are the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of a product which allegedly injured plaintiffs. After plaintiffs’ expert was deposed, defendants learned that a product component was the alleged cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants filed a motion with the trial court for leave to file a third-party complaint against the component’s manufacturer, distributor, and seller, seeking indemnification and contribution. The trial court denied the motion.
We grant defendants’ petition after finding that the trial court’s order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. Here, as in Steak Enters., Inc. v. Claus, 345 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA1976), the trial court’s refusal to permit defendants to implead the third parties may expose defendants, in an independent action for contribution or indemnity, to an outcome inconsistent with the resolution of this action. The third parties are not bound by a judgment rendered in this case when the trial court has precluded defendants from filing the third-party complaint. The record does not reflect a basis for the trial court’s ruling. Although the motion for leave to amend was originally filed close to the time of trial, the advent of Hurricane Andrew caused the trial to be continued; thus, when the motion was heard, time constraints were no longer a factor in ruling on the motion. Accordingly, the trial court’s order departs from essential requirements of law, and no remedy exists on plenary appeal for such an injury.
Certiorari granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…conclusion of the underlying litigation, those parties would not be bound by the jury’s findings in this litigation and the outcome in the independent action may be inconsistent with the outcome in the present case. See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Lugo, 614 So. 2d 16, 16-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Steak Enters., Inc. v. Claus, 345 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); see also Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fennell, 686 So. 2d 1, l(Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Sterling and Steak Enters.). The potential for an inconsistent outc…
-
The Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fennell, 686 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…time. We note that that appeal has recently been disposed of, and the order on certification was affirmed per curiam. Should the motion to bring in a third party defendant be revisited, we draw counsel’s attention to Sterling Drug, Inc., v. Lugo, 614 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) and Steak Enters., Inc., v. Claus, 345 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The companies raised another issue (fees for their adversaries’ expert) which we also dismiss as causing no irreparable harm and thus without this court’s c…
Authorities Cited
- Steak Enters., Inc. v. Claus, 345 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)