REBHAN LEASING CORPORATION, F/K/A TRAIL LEASING CORPORATION, CHRYSLER CORPORATION, DRAC CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION, AND CHRYSLER LEASING CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIRIAM TRIAS, FLAMINGO TOURS AND TRAVEL AGENCY, INC. AND LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Vehicle owners held vicariously liable under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine are entitled to seek indemnification from active tortfeasors, even after those tortfeasors have settled with the injured plaintiff. The court reversed the dismissal of the owners' cross-claim for indemnification, holding that settlement and insurance coverage do not extinguish the owners' right to indemnity based on common law principles.
Vehicle owners held vicariously liable are entitled to indemnification from active tortfeasors regardless of settlement or insurance coverage. The settlement between the active tortfeasors and the plaintiff does not extinguish the indemnification claim, and the exhaustion of insurance does not defeat the owner's right to indemnity based on common law principles.
[1] A party held vicariously liable for injuries is entitled to indemnification from the active tortfeasors.
[2] Settlement by active tortfeasors with the plaintiff does not extinguish their liability for indemnification to a vicariously liable party.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The law is well-settled that one who is only vicariously liable is entitled to indemnification from the active tortfeasors.”
Establishes the foundational principle that vicarious liability does not bar indemnification claims against active tortfeasors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA passenger was injured when a van blew a tire and was involved in an accident. The vehicle was owned by the appellants (Chrysler Corporation, DRAC Ch…
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 Cross-Claim For Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a cross-claim for indemnification. The original plaintiff brought suit against ten defendants as a result of injuries she received when a van in which she was a passenger blew a tire and became involved in an accident. The defendants included the owners of the vehicle (appellants),1 and the lessee, driver, and tire manufacturer (appellees).2 Several of the defendants filed cross-claims and counterclaims. Ultimately, the appel-lees, as active tortfeasors, settled with the plaintiff, at which time the appellants’ cross-claims against the appellees for indemnification and contribution were dismissed. The plaintiff procured a judgment against one of the owners, DRAC Chrysler Corp., based on its vicarious responsibility pursuant to the Florida dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The owners appeal from the dismissal of their claim for indemnification.3 We reverse.
The law is well-settled that one who is only vicariously liable is entitled to indemnification from the active tortfeasors. Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979); Hertz Corporation v. Richards, 224 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The fact that the active tortfeasors settled with the plaintiff does not release them from the claim for indemnification by the party held vicariously liable. Elier and Company v. Morgan, 393 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1981); Hertz Corporation v. Hellene, 140 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
We reject the appellees’ contention that payment of the maximum amount of insurance under their policy defeats the owner’s claim for indemnification. This argument confuses insurance coverage with the right to indemnification. In Insurance Company of North America v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 348 So. 2d 1149, 1153 (Fla.1977), the court held:
[T]he law requires motor vehicle owners to provide liability insurance coverage for the operation of their motor vehicles on the highways of this state. Independent of this insurance requirement is the common law obligation of vehicle owners under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. But neither of these financial responsibility principles bear on ... the right of indemnification which derives from the common law principle that fault attracts primary responsibility.
The owner of a vehicle is entitled to common law indemnity from his permittee except where the lease provides that insurance will be provided by the lessor to the lessee. Truck Discount Corporation v. Serrano, 362 So. 2d 340, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Morse Auto Rentals, Inc. v. Lewis, 161 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
Consequently, the order of the lower court is reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the appellants’ cross-claim for indemnification.
. Chrysler Corporation, DRAC Chrysler, Chrysler Leasing, Rebhan Leasing Corporation, and their insurer, Continental Insurance Company.
. Flamingo Tours, and its insurer, Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, Miriam Trias, and General Tire and Rubber Company, and its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
. The appellants admit that their claim for contribution was properly dismissed. § 768.-31(5)(b), Fla.Stat. (1977); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Gordon, 328 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. OF Canada v. Value Rent-A-Car OF Fla., Inc., 463 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…lessor agrees to furnish the lessee with liability insurance. See Truck Discount Corp. v. Serrano, 362 So. 2d 340, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Guemes v. Biscayne Auto Rentals, Inc., 414 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Rebhan Leasing Corp. v. Trias, 419 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The proper theoretical basis for this exception is that the underlying purpose of an agreement between the owner-lessor and the driver-lessee as to liability insurance is not the intent to make a contract for indemnification…1 / 2
-
Safecare Med. Ctr. v. Donald C. Howard, D.O., 670 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…t. Benjamin stands for the proposition that a tortfea-sor’s settlement, standing alone, does not release the tortfeasor from an indemnification claim by a party held vicariously liable for the tortfeasor’s conduct. See Rebhan Leasing Corp. v. Trias, 419 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 427 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1983). Second, unlike the Safe-care/Loeb litigation, which was settled at trial after an appeal, the dismissal in Benjamin occurred at the pleading stage of the lawsuit, before the issues h…
-
Julien P. Benjamin Equip. Co. v. Blackwell Burner Co., 450 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…l Burner Company, the manufacturer of the product. We reverse on the holdings that, contrary to Blackwell’s contentions, neither the manufacturer’s settlement of a prior action brought against it by the same plaintiff, Rebhan Leasing Corp. v. Trias, 419 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1983), nor the fact that the plaintiff’s complaint in this case alleges only active negligence by the distributor,1 Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Brown, 297 So. 2d 843 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), preclude…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 348 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1977)
- The HERTZ Corp. v. Hellens, 140 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Ashville v. Super Concrete, Inc., 161 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Gordon, 328 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Okeechobee Cnty. Bank v. Gernat, 362 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- The HERTZ Corp. v. Richards, 224 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Eller & Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 393 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)