SOLAR AMERICA CORPORATION, A/K/A SOLAR AMERICA CRONEX, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE INDEPENDENT SOLAR PLAN COMPANY AND SOLAR CITY, INC., 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.
Solar America Corporation appealed the dismissal of its third-party indemnity complaint against Solar City, Inc., the manufacturer of a defective solar water heater. The court reversed, holding that the complaint stated a valid cause of action for indemnity where the seller's liability to the purchaser was entirely vicarious, based on the manufacturer's negligent manufacturing.
Yes. The court held that indemnity lies against the manufacturer where the seller's liability is entirely vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical and is based on the manufacturer's negligent acts. The third-party complaint therefore states a valid cause of action for indemnity.
[1] A third-party complaint states a cause of action for indemnity when it alleges that the third-party plaintiff's liability to the original plaintiff was entirely vicarious…
[2] Indemnity lies against a manufacturer when a seller's liability to a purchaser is based on the manufacturer's alleged negligent acts in producing a defective product.
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“the third party complaint states a cause of action sounding in indemnity”
The court's primary holding reversing the dismissal order
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSolar America Corporation sold a solar water heater that was allegedly defective due to the manufacturer's (Solar City, Inc.) negligent manufacturing.…
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 Technical Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order dismissing an amended third party complaint filed by the seller of a solar water heater [Solar America Corporation, a/k/a Solar America Cronex] against the manufacturer of the solar water heater [Solar City, Inc.].1 The amended third party complaint sounds in indemnity and is based on a claim filed against the seller by the purchaser of the solar water heater — which claim was settled between the parties and paid by the seller.
We reverse the final order of dismissal upon a holding that the subject third party complaint states a cause of action sounding in indemnity; indeed, the third party defendant manufacturer has filed a confession of error to that effect. The third party complaint alleges that the seller’s liability to the purchaser in this case was entirely vicarious, constructive, derivative or technical, as it was based on the manufacturer’s alleged negligent acts in manufacturing a defective solar water heater. The law is clear that indemnity lies against the manufacturer under these circumstances. See Pender v. Skillcraft Indus., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Insurance Co. of North America v. King, 340 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Wetherington, Tort Indemnity in Florida, 8 Fla.St.L. Rev. 383, 409-10 (1980).
The final order of dismissal under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
. An appeal taken from the same final order dismissing a cross-claim filed by the seller of the solar water heater [Solar America Corporation, a/k/a Solar America Cronex] against the installer of the solar water heater [The Independent Solar Plan Company] has been settled by the parties during the pendency of this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amisub OF Fla., Inc. v. Derrell O. Billington, D.O., 560 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…like the hospital here, is required to expend when it is held liable only because of the vicarious wrongdoing of another. See Mortgage Corp. of America v. Vorndran, 334 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Solar America Corp. v. Independent Solar Plan Co., 505 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). This rule, [*1272] however, is not applicable in the present situation in which there has been neither a satisfaction of a judgment actually rendered against the purported indemnitee nor a determination — indeed the jury found th…
Authorities Cited
- Pender v. Skillcraft Indus., Inc., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & Ford Motor Co. v. Gena M. King, 340 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)