MAYFAIR I AND II, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 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.
Mayfair, the lessor of a shopping center, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the lessee Romanoff and its insurer on liability for water damage caused by a burst pipe above the lessee's store. The appellate court reverses, finding material factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
Summary judgment should not have been granted because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding negligent maintenance and the parties' respective actions and obligations related to the pipe rupture.
[1] Summary judgment should be granted only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact.
[2] A trial court errs in granting summary judgment when there are questions of material fact regarding the parties' actions and obligations.
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“A summary judgment should be granted only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment in Florida, requiring no genuine disputes of material fact.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA pipe above Romanoff's clothing store in a Mayfair shopping center burst, causing water damage. According to Romanoff, the rupture occurred when plum…
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 Common Law Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lessors claim the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on liability in favor of lessee and its insurance company for property damage sustained by lessee. We reverse the order under review.
American Specialty Insurance Company, insurer for the lessee clothing store Roma-noff, Inc., and Romanoff, Inc. (Romanoff) brought this action against Terremark Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Monty’s Stone Crab (Monty’s), Tom Harris Plumbing, and lessors, Mayfair I and II, Inc. and Mayfair III, Inc. a/k/a Mayfair in the Grove d/b/a Mayfair Shops in the Grove (Mayfair), seeking damages for negligent maintenance of the plumbing system in Mayfair, including but not limited to the plumbing above Romanoff. A pipe above Romanoff had exploded causing damage in the shop. Mayfair filed cross-claims against Monty’s for contractual and common law indemnification and contribution, and against Tom Harris for contribution. Additionally, Mayfair filed counterclaims against American Specialty and Romanoff for breach of contract based upon the lease agreement between Romanoff and Mayfair. Thereafter, Romanoff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. After hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Roma-noff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability.
According to Romanoff, the subject rupture occurred when the plumbing at Monty’s backed up, causing Monty’s to call Tom Harris to repair the problem. Tom Harris appeared at Monty’s and while attempting to fix the problem, a pipe burst, resulting in the alleged water damage.
A summary judgment should be granted only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). Here, considering the lack of evidence on the allegation of negligent maintenance and considering the questions of material fact as to the parties’ actions and obligations, summary judgment should not have been ordered. See Carbajo v. City of Hialeah, 514 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA1987); Clark v. Lumbermans Mut. Ins. Co., 465 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985).
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Carbajo v. City OF Hialeah, 514 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Clark v. Lumbermans Mut. Ins. Co. & Orange Park Assembly of God, 465 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)