BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EAGLE FAMILY DISCOUNT STORES, INC., 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.
Dade County appealed the dismissal of its negligence complaint against Eagle Family Discount Stores for improper warehouse storage practices. The court affirmed dismissal, finding Dade County was estopped by judgment from relitigating the same storage issue it had successfully defeated in a prior federal declaratory action with its insurance carrier.
Dade County is estopped by judgment from relitigating the same issue in state court. Because a court of competent jurisdiction already decided the exact question—whether improper storage practices by Eagle increased fire hazard—Dade County cannot maintain this negligence action based on the same storage practices it previously proved were not improper.
[1] A party is estopped by judgment from litigating an issue that has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, even if the causes of action in the two cases…
[2] A party may be precluded from asserting a position in a subsequent lawsuit that is inconsistent with a position successfully asserted in a prior lawsuit.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Dade County collected its insurance by proving there were no improper storage practices by Eagle and now maintains a completely inconsistent position in pleadings seeking damages from Eagle for the same improper storage it successfully proved did not exist.”
Establishes the factual inconsistency that forms the basis for the estoppel argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a warehouse fire, Dade County's insurance carrier sued in federal court seeking relief from liability, alleging improper storage of material…
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 Inconsistent Positions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Board of County Commissioners of Dade County (Dade County) filed a complaint seeking money damages from Eagle Family Discount Stores, Inc. (Eagle) for its negligence in stacking and arranging certain goods and products stored in a warehouse owned by Dade County and leased to Eagle. Dade County now appeals an order striking its complaint against Eagle as a sham as well as a final order dismissing its complaint with prejudice. As grounds for its motion to strike, Eagle alleged that in a prior declaratory action in Federal Court, Dade County had taken a position inconsistent with its position in this case, now knowing same to be false.
Pertinent history is that following a fire in the warehouse, United States Liability Insurance Company, Dade County's casualty insurance carrier, sued for a judgment relieving it from liability for losses to Dade County due to the fire. The carrier alleged, among other things, that Dade County at the time of the loss, and prior thereto, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that there was improper storage of materials in the building which materially increased the fire hazard for the building and which could or did cause the loss by fire. The carrier further contended that this activated a policy provision which suspended coverage.
Dade County denied the allegations as to improper storage, and through the testimony of Eagle’s warehouse manager, together with his computer records, obtained a favorable order stating that there was no evidence that the storage practices increased the fire hazard. Actually, Dade County collected its insurance by proving there were no improper storage practices by Eagle and now maintains a completely inconsistent position in pleadings seeking damages from Eagle for the same improper storage it successfully proved did not exist. Olin’s Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, 104 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1958). In the declaratory action, the issue was, “Did improper storage practices by Eagle increase the fire hazard, and did Dade County have control or knowledge of same?” The second part of the question became moot upon finding that there were no improper storage practices. In this case we have the same issue, “Did improper storage practices by Eagle increase the fire hazard?”
Though the causes of action in the two cases are admittedly different, the relevant issues are identical, and a court of competent jurisdiction has decided the exact question. Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Simpson, 151 Fla. 564, 10 So. 2d 85 (1942). Therefore, Dade County is estopped by judgment from litigating the same issue in a state court. City of Hialeah Gardens v. Prieto, 353 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); and we concur with the trial court’s determination that there were no genuine issues to be tried.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Scandia OF Hialeah, Inc., 414 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…on v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1977); Seaboard Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Cox, 338 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1976); Tuz v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 310 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1975); Board of County Commissioners of Dade County v. Eagle Family Discount Stores, Inc., 380 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); City of Hialeah Gardens v. Prieto, 353 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Simco Operating Corporation v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, 341 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1977). National Union f…
-
Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty. v. Olin Corp., 395 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See, Board of County Commissioners of Dade County v. Eagle Family Discount Stores, Inc., 380 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).…
-
Eagle Fam. Disc. Stores, Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty., 403 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…prior declaratory judgment action Dade County had taken an inconsistent position. We affirmed the order striking the complaint on the grounds of equitable es-toppel. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County v. Eagle Family Discount Stores, Inc., 380 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The parties then proceeded to litigation the counterclaim on the question as to whether notice was required to be given to Dade County pursuant to Section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1975).2 Ultimately, Eagle’s permissive counte…
Authorities Cited
- Town OF Palm Beach Shores v. Doty, 104 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1958)
- City OF Hialeah Gardens v. Prieto, 353 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Simpson, 151 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1942)