SHOWELL INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HOLMES COUNTY, A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Showell Industries appealed the dismissal of its third-party complaint for contribution against Holmes County, arguing that the statute of limitations for claims against political subdivisions should not bar a contribution claim filed after the three-year period from the accident. The court reversed, holding that a contribution claim accrues only when judgment is entered or payment is made, not when the underlying tort occurs.
The court held that a cause of action for contribution does not accrue until a judgment has been entered against the third-party plaintiff or the third-party plaintiff has paid the original claimant's damages. Therefore, the statute of limitations did not begin running until one of these events occurred, not from the date of the accident. The three-year limitations period under Section 768.28(6) applies to contribution claims against political subdivisions.
[1] A claim for contribution against a political subdivision does not accrue until a judgment has been entered against the third-party plaintiff or until the third-party plai…
[2] The statute of limitations for claims against the State or its political subdivisions controls over the statute of limitations in the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeaso…
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“A claim for contribution, however, does not accrue until a judgment has been entered against the defendant, third party plaintiff, or until the defendant has paid the claim.”
Establishes the core holding that contribution claims accrue at a different time than the underlying tort claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn intersection collision occurred on June 8, 1976, involving a Showell Industries employee and Mrs. Ellenburg. Mrs. Ellenburg sued Showell on January…
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 Contribution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Showed Industries, Inc. (Showed) and its insurance carrier appeal the trial court’s order dismissing their third party complaint for contribution against Holmes County. We reverse.
This case arose from an intersection collision involving an employee of Showed and a Mrs. Ellenburg on June 8, 1976. Mrs. El-lenburg filed suit against appellants on January 27, 1978, for injuries suffered in the accident. Appellants answered the complaint and filed a third party complaint against Holmes County on August 16, 1979. The third party complaint alleged that Holmes County was negligent in its maintenance of the intersection.
Holmes County filed its motion to dismiss alleging that the third party complaint was barred by Section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1975), the statute of limitations for claims against the State or its political subdivisions, since no claim was filed against Holmes County within three years from the date of the accident. The trial court agreed and dismissed the third party complaint.
Section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1975), states that no action shad be instituted against the State or one of its political subdivisions unless a claim has been presented and denied within three years from the date the claim accrues. The crucial issue in this case, therefore, is when did Showed’s claim, if any, against Holmes County accrue. The trial court held that appellant’s cause of action accrued on the date giving rise to the underlying tort claim. A claim for contribution, however, does not accrue until a judgment has been entered against the defendant, third party plaintiff, or until the defendant has paid the claim. See ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Southeastern Maintenance Co., 620 F. 2d 512 (5th Cir. 1980).
Prior to one of the above contingencies happening, the defendant, third party plaintiff, has only a possibility of a claim against the third party defendant. We hold therefore that the statute of limitations did not begin running against appellants’ claim for contribution until the date a judgment was entered against Showed or until the date Showed paid Mrs. Ellenburg’s claim for damages, whichever was earlier. As noted in Keleket X-ray Corp. v. United States, 275 F. 2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1960), the fact that the statute of limitations has run against the original plaintiff’s action does not bar a suit for contribution since that cause of action does not arise until payment.
Regarding the appropriate statute of limitation for Showed’s claim for contribution, we hold that the three-year statutory period allowed in § 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1975), for claims against the State controls over the one-year statutory period allowed in the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, § 768.31(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). See Beard v. Hambrick, 396 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1981), and Dubose v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 387 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), regarding a conflict between the statute of limitations for claims against the State and the general statute of limitation for wrongful death actions. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
McCORD, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Kala Invs., Inc. v. Sklar, 538 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…1986) (contribution); Castle Construction Co. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 425 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (indemnity); Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Rojas, 409 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (indemnity); Showell Industries, Inc. v. Holmes County, 409 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (contribution). This is so despite the fact that the statute of limitations has run on the original cause of action at the time the contribution claim is filed, Showell Industries, Inc. v. Holmes County, 409 So. 2d at 78, and des…
-
Va. Ins. Reciprocal v. Frank C. Walker, Jr., M.D., 765 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…was barred by the statute of repose for actions founded on the design or construction of buildings, even though the action was timely under the statute of limitations for contribution actions. Likewise, in Showell Industries, Inc. v. Holmes County, 409 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court held that the three-year statute of limitations for negligence claims against the state applied in place of the one-year statute of limitations for contribution claims. In these cases, the courts recognized that the s…
-
Hyster Co. v. David, 612 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ty.” See, e.g., Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc. v. Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., 547 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA1989); Department of Transportation v. General Portland, Inc., 443 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA1983); Showell Industries, Inc. v. Holmes County, 409 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA1982). This seems to be the case generally among those states which have adopted the Uniform Act. See Albert v. Dietz, 283 F.Supp. 854 (D.Haw.1968) (applying Hawaiian law); Southern Maryland Oil Co. v. Texas Co., 203 F.Supp. 449 (D.Md.1…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beard v. Hambrick, 396 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1981)
- Keleket X-Ray Corp. v. United States, 275 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Se. Mar. Co., 620 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Dubose v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)