UNITED TECHNOLOGIES COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CARLSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 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.
UTC appeals a judgment in favor of Carlson Construction for equitable subrogation damages arising from acid corrosion of telecommunications equipment. The court reverses, holding that Carlson's third lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it was based on the same transaction and facts as two previously voluntarily dismissed actions.
The court held that Carlson's second equitable subrogation action was barred because all three lawsuits were predicated on the same transaction and facts, and the same evidence would prove the underlying claim in each action. A second voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits and bars subsequent litigation of the same claim.
[1] A voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits when a plaintiff has previously dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.
[2] The test for determining whether prior voluntary dismissals bar a subsequent lawsuit is whether the actions are predicated on the same transaction and facts, such that th…
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“a voluntary dismissal "operates as an adjudication upon the merits when served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court an action based on or including the same claim."”
Establishes the legal standard under Rule 1.420 that a second voluntary dismissal acts as res judicata.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMercy Hospital contracted with UTC to install telecommunications equipment and with Carlson to remodel its third floor. During construction, Carlson d…
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 Equitable Subrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
United Technologies Communications Company [UTC] appeals a final judgment. We reverse.
Mercy Hospital contracted with UTC to install telecommunications equipment and contracted with Carlson Construction Company [Carlson] to remodel its third floor to accommodate the equipment. During the course of construction, Carlson drilled holes in the fourth story floor; these holes were not filled. Consequently, an acid solution being used to clean the fourth floor tile leaked through the holes and corroded the equipment on the third floor. UTC repaired the damaged equipment. Some time later, continuing acid corrosion made additional repairs necessary. UTC again made the repairs.
Mercy Hospital sued UTC and Carlson to recover the cost of the repairs. Carlson cross-claimed against UTC for contribution, but later voluntarily dismissed its cross-claim. The trial court entered a directed verdict against Carlson for the cost of the initial repairs, and a judgment pursuant to a jury verdict against UTC and Carlson, jointly and severally for the amount of the subsequent repairs. UTC appealed. Carlson then filed a motion for judgment against UTC for the amount of the subsequent repairs. The trial court denied the motion. Carlson appealed. The appeals were consolidated. This court reversed the final judgment against UTC and ordered that judgment be entered in UTC’s favor. United Technologies Communications Co. v. Industrial Risk Ins., 501 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Carlson then sued UTC under a theory of equitable subrogation for the amount of its liability to Mercy, but Carlson voluntarily dismissed its action. After satisfying Mercy’s judgment, Carlson again sued UTC for equitable subrogation to recover the expenses it incurred from UTC’s failure to clean the equipment properly after the initial spill. The trial court entered final judgment in Carlson’s favor. UTC appeals.
Pursuant to Rule 1.420, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a voluntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication upon the merits when served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court an action based on or including the same claim.” The test for determining whether prior voluntary dismissals act to bar a subsequent lawsuit is enunciated in Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Mt. Sinai Hosp., 448 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 458 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1984). Here, as in Variety Children’s Hosp., the actions were all predicated on the same transaction and the same facts; “the same evidence would serve as the basis for proving the transaction...” Variety Children’s Hosp., 448 So. 2d at 548. Although Carlson advanced different theories for recovery, the three lawsuits are predicated on the same underlying claim. The third lawsuit was therefore barred by the dismissals in the first two actions. For these reasons, we reverse the final judgment and remand for entry of a judgment in UTC’s favor. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edmondson v. Green, 755 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…t are the same as in the prior dismissed suit, and the judgment sought in each requires the same proof to justify it, then the second suit should be barred by the rule. See id.; see also United Technologies Communications Co. v. Carlson Constr. Co., 583 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding voluntary dismissal of claim for contribution, followed by voluntary dismissal of claim for equitable subrogation, barred subsequent action for equitable subrogation where theories of recovery, albeit different, were all…
-
Stephen D. Vaughan & Cynthia J. Vaughan v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Fla., 740 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…voluntarily dismissed case, then the “two dismissal rule” is applicable. See generally McCaughan Mortgage Co., Inc. v. American Nat'l Bank, 634 So. 2d 1099, 1099-1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); United Technologies Communications Co. v. Carlson Constr. Co., 583 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). There is no dispute that all three cases list the same property for foreclosure and the Vaughans as defendants. Although First Union recognizes the “two dismissal rule,” they cite Crump v. Gold House Restaurants, Inc., 96…
-
Scutieri v. TEW, Spittler, Berger & Bluestein, P.A., 674 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (dismissal of action pursuant to joint stipulation did not preclude, under principles of res judicata, filing separate action to enforce settlement agreement); cf. United Technologies Communications Co. v. Carlson Constr. Co., 583 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (voluntary dismissal of claim for contribution, followed by voluntary dismissal of claim for equitable subrogation, barred subsequent action for equitable subrogation; different theories of recovery were all based on same transact…
Authorities Cited
- Variety Child's. Hosp. v. MT. Sinai Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc., 448 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- United Techs. Commc'ns Co. v. Indus. Risk Insurers & Mercy Hosp., Inc., 501 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)