Constructive Liability

22 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards
  374 So. 2d 490· Fla.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 302×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a manufacturer of a defective product cannot seek common law indemnity from the employer of an injured worker unless the manufacturer's liability is solely vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical. The court reversed the district court
• Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Vest
  480 So. 2d 1328· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-10-25 ·cited 81×
  Atlantic National Bank appeals a judgment awarding damages to James Vest in a third-party indemnity action arising from an automobile accident. The court reverses, holding that Vest failed to establish the requisite elements for either negligent misrepresentation or breach of fid
• Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp. v. Stewart
  427 So. 2d 776· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-02-15 ·cited 35×
  MGIC, a property owner held liable in a wrongful death settlement, sought common law indemnity against Stewart, a real estate agent hired to maintain the property, arguing it was without fault and only vicariously liable due to Stewart's negligence. The court reversed the dismiss
• Peak Drilling Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.
  215 F.2d 368· 10th Cir.· 1954-08-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Oklahoma Workmen's Compensation Act's exclusivity provision bars a third-party claim for indemnity when the employer's negligence is alleged to be active and primary, absent an independent contractual relationship.
• Cleary Bros. Constr. Co. v. Upper Keys Marine Constr., Inc.
  526 So. 2d 116· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-04-12 ·cited 23×
  Cleary Brothers Construction Co. appealed a summary judgment in favor of Upper Keys Marine Construction, Inc., claiming entitlement to indemnification under a contract. The court reversed, holding that the trial court mistakenly conflated indemnity claims with subrogation claims
• Marathon Pipe Line Co. v. Drilling RIG Rowan/Odessa
  761 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an action for indemnity or contribution is governed by maritime law when the original tortfeasor's liability is maritime, and that such an action accrues when the tortfeasor is cast in judgment on the principal demand, thus not being barred by laches.
• Diplomat Props. Ltd. P'ship v. Tecnoglass, LLC
  114 So. 3d 357· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-05-22 ·cited 15×
  Diplomat Properties, as assignee of Shower Concepts, appealed dismissal of its common law indemnity claim against Tecnoglass for defective glass shower doors. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a party's liability for breach of contract can form the basis
• Ford Motor Co. v. Hill
  381 So. 2d 249· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-12-28 ·cited 15×
  Ford Motor Company appeals a products liability verdict in a case involving injuries from a "second collision" defect in a truck design. The court affirms the jury verdict based on strict liability, while certifying to the Florida Supreme Court a question about whether common law
• Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
  472 So. 2d 1373· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-07-30 ·cited 14×
  Blue Cross sought indemnification from Ryder for medical benefits paid to an insured injured in a car accident caused by Ryder's negligence. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that Blue Cross lacks a common law right of indemnity because no special relationship existed between
• Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co. v. KEN Mullen Plumbing, Inc.
  171 So. 3d 194· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-07-31 ·cited 5×
  Florida Peninsula Insurance Company appealed the dismissal of its third-party complaint against plumbing contractor Ken Mullen Plumbing for common law indemnity, equitable subrogation, and negligence claims arising from water damage to an insured's home. The Fifth District Court
• Budweiser-Busch Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Keystone Lines
  607 So. 2d 503· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-11-10 ·cited 4×
  Budweiser-Busch Distributing Company appeals summary judgments in favor of trucking company Keystone Lines in an indemnity action arising from a fatal accident involving Keystone's truck carrying Budweiser's beer shipment. The court reverses, finding that genuine issues of materi
• Olivieri v. Fla. Ass'n OF Pub. Emp. Pension Trs., Inc.
  627 So. 2d 1335· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-12-15 ·cited 2×
  A third-party complaint seeking indemnity against a lawyer for malpractice, based on the lawyer's alleged negligence exposing the client to loss, states a cause of action.
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
  752 F. Supp. 434· S.D. Fla.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims for restitution and indemnity, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Solar Am. Corp. v. The Indep. Solar Plan Co. & Solar City, Inc.
  505 So. 2d 686· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-04-21 ·cited 2×
  Solar America Corporation appealed the dismissal of its third-party indemnity complaint against Solar City, Inc., the manufacturer of a defective solar water heater. The court reversed, holding that the complaint stated a valid cause of action for indemnity where the seller's lia
• United States Lines, Inc. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co.
  688 F.2d 236· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of primary liability against Newport, Bethlehem, and TEI were supported by the record, but reversed the determination that Bethlehem was entitled to indemnification from Newport.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. A. D. H., Inc.
  397 So. 2d 928· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-03-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the party asserting estoppel by judgment has the burden to prove the prior determination of fault, and a general verdict of negligence is insufficient to establish this.
• Webjet Linhas Aereas S.A. v. ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-03-20
  A joint settlement proposal need not apportion the settlement amount between multiple offerors when one offeror's liability is alleged to be solely constructive under rule 1.442(c)(4), even though rule 1.442(c)(3) generally requires such apportionment in joint proposals.
• Silberman v. Premier Beauty & Health LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-22
  The court held that the Counter-Plaintiffs' claims for fraud in the inducement and indemnification failed to meet pleading standards and were dismissed.
• Jia v. Boardwalk Fresh Burgers & Fries, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-22
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, finding contribution claims failed under Ohio and Florida law but survived under Maryland law, and all indemnification claims failed.
• Highwoods Props., Inc. v. Milar Elevator Serv. Co. & Schindler Elevator Co.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-05-16
  An indemnity cross-claim is not abandoned by failure to amend it in response to an amended complaint, a settlement made during the damages phase after liability is determined is not a prohibited Mary Carter agreement, and the voluntariness of a settlement payment must be litigate
• Brown v. CSX Transp., Inc.
  363 F. Supp. 2d 1342· M.D. Fla.· 2005-03-24
  The court held that the third-party defendants' argument that CSXT's indemnity claim was barred by a logical paradox failed because CSXT could be held liable under FELA for the active negligence of a third party, and Florida indemnity law allows claims where the seeking party's l
• Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Hedinger
  407 F.2d 655· 7th Cir.· 1969-02-27
  The court held that under Indiana law, an insurer cannot recover indemnity from an independent contractor for a settlement payment when the insured was actively negligent and not merely constructively liable.