WESTERN KNAPP ENGINEERING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLEES; WESTERN KNAPP ENGINEERING COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, APPELLEE; UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, AND WESTERN KNAPP ENGINEERING COMPANY, APPELLEES; UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES; LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, WESTERN KNAPP ENGINEERING COMPANY, MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLEES; LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. WESTERN KNAPP ENGINEERING COMPANY, MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLEES; MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLANTS, V. UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, APPELLEE; MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLANTS, V. WESTERN KNAPP ENGINEERING COMPANY, 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.
Multiple defendants in consolidated products liability cases appealed the dismissal of their cross-claims for contribution and indemnity, which had been dismissed as moot after they obtained summary judgments against the original plaintiffs. The court reversed, holding that when the original plaintiffs' judgments are reversed on appeal, the defendants' cross-claims for contribution must be reinstated.
Cross-claims for contribution and indemnity must be reinstated when the underlying judgments against the original plaintiffs are reversed. Summary judgments based on statute of limitations grounds do not have res judicata effect on contribution claims, and an injured party's failure to sue one tortfeasor does not defeat a later accruing contribution claim against that tortfeasor.
[1] A cross-claim for contribution or indemnity loses its vitality when the defendant/cross-claimant obtains a summary judgment against the original plaintiff.
[2] When summary judgments against original plaintiffs are reversed on appeal, previously dismissed cross-claims for contribution and indemnity must be reinstated.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the core holding that reinstatement of original plaintiffs' claims triggers reinstatement of defendants' cross-claims for contribution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFour defendants (Maule Industries, its insurer Insurance Company of North America, Western Knapp Engineering Company, and Universal Engineering Corpor…
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.
The appeals in the above consolidated cases are from summary final judgments entered in favor of the respective appellees on the appellants’ cross-claims for contribution and indemnity. The sole basis for the entry of these summary final judgments was that these cross-claims had lost all vitality after the defendants/cross-claimants (Maulé Industries, Inc.; its insurer, Insurance Company of North America; Western Knapp Engineering Company; and Universal Engineering Corporation) had obtained summary judgments in their favor against the original plaintiffs. Because the actions of the original plaintiffs have been reinstated by the subsequent reversal of the summary judgments against them, see Perez v. Maule Industries, Inc., 421 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1982), quashing Perez v. Maule Industries, Inc., 411 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Perez v. Universal Engineering Corp., 413 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), remanded, 451 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1984); and Valdes v. Western Knapp Engineering Co., 382 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the cross-claims of the once-again exposed defendants likewise must be reinstated by the reversal of the instant summary judgments.
We reject Universal Engineering Corporation’s separate contention that because the summary judgments entered in its favor against two of the original plaintiffs, Lopez and Valdes, were not appealed, the cross-claims for contribution against Universal as to those cases (Nos. 80-362, 80-366, 80-395, 80-403, 80-406 and 80-408) cannot be reinstated. Universal has overlooked that the summary judgments in its favor against these plaintiffs were based solely on a statute of limitations ground, and thus have no res judicata effect on any cause of action for contribution against it. The inaction of an injured party against one tortfeasor simply will not defeat a later accruing claim for contribution against that tortfeasor. Keleket X-Ray Corp. v. United States, 275 F. 2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1960). See Schott v. Colonial Baking Co., 111 F.Supp. 13 (W.D.Ark.1953); Goldsberry v. Frank Clendaniel, Inc., 49 Del. 69, 109 A. 2d 405 (Del.Super.Ct.1954); Showell Industries, Inc. v. Holmes County, 409 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); McGlone v. Corbi, 59 N.J. 86, 279 A. 2d 812 (1971).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Universal Eng'g Corp. v. Perez, 451 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1984)
- Perez v. Universal Eng'g Corp., 413 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Keleket X-Ray Corp. v. United States, 275 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Showell Indus., Inc. v. Holmes Cnty., 409 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Perez v. Maule Indus., 411 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Carmel Carter v. Supplies, Inc., 411 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Berdeal v. Berdeal, 382 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Perez v. Maule Indus., Inc., 421 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1982)