BUILDERS GLASS & METAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
M.E.T. CONSTRUCTION, INC., ETC., 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.
The court held that the plaintiff did not split its cause of action by suing the contractor in circuit court and the surety in county court.
Plaintiff sued the contractor in circuit court for wrongful termination and the contractor's surety in county court for the reasonable value of labor …
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 Splitting Causes Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Builders Glass & Metal, Inc. [Builders Glass] challenges the trial court’s entry of Final Summary Judgment in favor of M.E.T. Construction, Inc. [MET]. The trial court apparently based its ruling as to MET’s motion for summary judgment on a determination that Builders Glass had split a cause of action when it. sued MET in circuit court for wrongful termination of a contract1 and sued MET’s surety, Trans-american Premier Insurance Company in county court2 for reasonable value of the labor and services performed.
We reverse. Because the two actions did not involve the same parties, or arise out of identical facts and circumstances, see Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), it cannot be said that a single cause of action was split.
Reversed.
. Builders Glass sued MET for its lost profit and for reasonable value of labor and services performed in excess of $5,000.
. MET was originally a party to this suit; later, Builders Glass dismissed its claim against MET.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alvarez v. Nestor Salesco, Inc., 695 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…on is part of the doctrine of res judicata. Id. at 297. While it can bar successive claims against the same parties, it is inapplicable to a subsequent claim brought against a different party. See also Builders Glass & Metal v. M.E.T. Constr., Inc., 528 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Reversed. PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Quinn v. Cusanelli, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)