BERT T. BANGERT AND JANET T. BANGERT, APPELLANTS,
v.
BYRON D. BEELER AND BEELER DEVELOPMENT 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.
The Bangerts appealed a judgment in a title warranty dispute after being sued by a third party claiming rights to property they purchased. The court reversed the trial court's finding that the Bangerts suffered no damages from the seller's breach of the warranty to defend title, holding that the collateral source rule applies to contract breaches and the seller remains liable for full damages even when an insurer paid the defense costs.
The breaching party is liable for the full amount of damages under the collateral source rule, which applies to both tort and contract cases. The breaching party cannot avoid liability by pointing to payment from a collateral source that is wholly independent of the breaching party.
[1] A breach of the warranty to defend title occurs when the warrantor fails to defend the grantee's title in a lawsuit challenging that title.
[2] The collateral source rule applies in contract actions, preventing a breaching party from reducing its liability by the amount paid to the non-breaching party by an indep…
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“a tractor seller who breached the warranty of title was liable for the full amount of damages even though the buyer's insuror paid the buyer for some of the damages. Here, the party that breached the warranty to defend title is likewise liable for the full amount of damages.”
Establishes that the collateral source rule applies to warranty of title breaches and the seller remains fully liable despite payment from an insurer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeeler Development Company conveyed property to the Bangerts by warranty deed. A third party (McMullen) later sued the Bangerts and Ridgeway for speci…
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 Third Party Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS', Judge.
The Bangerts appeal from a final judgment in a third-party claim alleging fraud and breach of warranties, and in a third-party counterclaim for mortgage foreclosure. The trial court erred in finding the Bangerts were not damaged as a result of the third-party defendants’ breach, of warranty to defend title. We reverse on this issue. We affirm the other issues.
Beeler Development Company (BDC) conveyed property to the Bangerts by warranty deed. The Bangerts and Ridgeway, a man involved with the sale of the property, were later sued by McMullen for specific performance of a contract between Ridgeway and McMullen for sale of the property to McMullen.
That original suit spawned a third-party claim by the Bangerts against BDC and its president, Beeler, which in turn precipitated a third-party counterclaim by Beeler for foreclosure of the Bangerts’ mortgage held by him.
The Bangerts contended BDC and Beeler breached the warranty to defend title by not defending them in the original suit. The trial court found that Beeler or BDC or both breached the warranty, but that the Bangerts did not incur damages. The latter finding was apparently based on testimony that the Bangerts’ title insuror paid the attorney’s fees for their defense. The trial court awarded one dollar nominal damages.
In Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), we held that the collateral source rule applies not only in tort, but also in contract. Thus, a tractor seller who breached the warranty of title was liable for the full amount of damages even though the buyer’s insuror paid the buyer for some of the damages. Here, the party that breached the warranty to defend title is likewise liable for the full amount of damages. The breaching party should not be rewarded when the wronged party’s collateral source is wholly independent of the breaching party.
At the oral argument on this case, counsel for Beeler and BDC contended the collateral source rule should not apply because there is no evidence that the Ban-gerts bought the title insurance policy, and that it was probably purchased by Ridge-way. We have examined the record and find Mr. Bangert testified, without contradiction, that he procured and paid for the policy.
Beeler and BDC also contend the issue is not preserved for review because counsel for the Bangerts did not object to testimony concerning the collateral source. We find he did.
Finally, Beeler and BDC contend the Bangerts failed to submit evidence of damages and therefore cannot recover even if the collateral source rule applies. The affidavit of the Bangerts’ trial counsel attesting to the amount of time he spent representing the Bangerts in the original suit and the reasonable value of such representation was sufficient.
The other issues are without merit.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe, 50 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…248, 253-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Third District stated, “It has been held that the collateral source rule does not apply to pure breach of contract cases.” There, the appellee cited in support of its collateral source argument Bangert v. Beeler, 470 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), both of which were also cited in Hamilton when acknowledging our contrary precedent. The Third District found these cases were distinguishable, explaining: Bangert and…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Carner, 579 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…rce rule to exclude evidence of the foreclosure sale price. Cousins was not a pure contract case as is the instant case. Rather, the defendant there was alleged to be, and found guilty of, negligence as well as breach of contract. Bangert v. Beeler, 470 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) and Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), also relied on by Carner-Mason are equally unconvincing since they both involved insurers and the possibility of subro-gation as set out in section 768.76, Florida Statut…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hamilton, 43 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ing that “in a tort or contract action total or partial compensation received by the plaintiff ... from a collateral source wholly independent of the defendant wrongdoer will not operate to lessen the damages otherwise due ... ”); Bangert v. Beeler, 470 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (applying collateral source doctrine to action for breach of warranty of title, because “[t]o hold otherwise would permit a wrongdoer to benefit from a policy of ins…
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. Hilliard, 329 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)