GAF CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
W. R. GRACE & CO., A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, 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.
GAF Corporation appealed from an order dismissing counts of its third-party complaint against W.R. Grace & Co. seeking indemnification. The court dismissed the appeal sua sponte because the order was not final or appealable interlocutory, as the dismissed counts shared the same factual background and parties as remaining claims.
The order is not a final or appealable interlocutory order because the dismissed counts and remaining claims are interrelated, involve the same transaction and parties, and are based on the same factual background. Piecemeal appeals are not permitted in such circumstances unless the dismissed counts constitute a separate and distinct cause of action independent from other pleaded claims.
[1] An order dismissing one of several counts arising from the same factual circumstances is not an appealable final order unless the dismissed count constitutes a separate a…
[2] Piecemeal appeals are not permitted when claims are interrelated, involve the same transaction, and the same parties remain in the suit.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Piecemeal appeals are not permitted where the claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties in the suit.”
Establishes the foundational rule prohibiting piecemeal appeals in interrelated claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGAF Corporation filed a third-party complaint against W.R. Grace & Co. in a suit brought by the School Board of Columbia County. Counts I through V so…
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 Separate And Distinct Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
LILES, WOODIE A. (Retired), Associate Judge.
Sua sponte, we dismiss this appeal because the order for which review is sought is not a final order or an appealable interlocutory order. GAF Corporation appeals from an order dismissing, with prejudice, Counts I through V of its third-party complaint against W. R. Grace & Co. The gravamen of these counts is that GAF is entitled to indemnity from Grace for any judgment that may be rendered against GAF and for the School Board of Columbia County, the original plaintiff. The subject order also dismisses, without prejudice, GAF’s claim for subrogation against Grace set (forth in Count VI of the third-party complaint. The factual circumstances underlying Counts I through V and Count VI are the same.
Piecemeal appeals are not permitted where the claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties in the suit.
S. L.
T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974). The only exception to this rule is found where the count or counts dismissed constitute a separate and distinct cause of action which is not interdependent with the other pleaded claims. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974). Although Counts I through V are based on a different legal theory (indemnification) than is the count which remains (subrogation), they are based on the same factual background.
Accordingly, under these circumstances, the subject order is not a final order and is not appealable. See Venezia A., Inc. v. Askew, 314 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 465 (1976). Appeal DISMISSED without prejudice to an appeal following final judgment.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Szewczyk v. Bayshore Props., 456 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…Co. v. Webb; Pena v. Tampa Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, 363 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1979). (3) Are the counts separately disposed of based on the same or different facts? See GAF Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 395 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also McClain Construction Corp. v. Roberts, 351 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (where the same facts were pertinent to each count of a multi-count complaint, and plaintiff implicitly recognized this by incorporating the same…
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Venezia A., Inc. v. Reubin O'Donovan Askew, 314 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)