LEONARD OLIVIERI A/K/A LEN OLIVIERI, INDIVIDUALLY AND LEONARD OLIVIERI D/B/A FLORIDA PUBLIC PENSION TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION TRUSTEES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ROBERT KLAUSNER, ESQUIRE AND CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 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.
A third-party complaint seeking indemnity against a lawyer for malpractice, based on the lawyer's alleged negligence exposing the client to loss, states a cause of action.
A credit union filed an interpleader action regarding disputed funds. One party, Olivieri, filed a third-party complaint against his lawyer, Klausner,…
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
KLEIN, Judge.
We reverse a determination that appellants’ third party complaint, seeking indemnity against a lawyer for malpractice, did not state a cause of action.
A credit union filed an interpleader action against a corporation and the appellant Olivi-eri, alleging that they were both asserting ownership of funds. The corporation filed a cross-claim against Olivieri alleging it owned the funds, but that Olivieri was the only signatory on the account. Olivieri filed a counterclaim against the corporation alleging the funds were his, and a third party complaint seeking indemnification against appel-lee Klausner, a lawyer. Olivieri alleged that Klausner was negligent in his representation of both the corporation and Olivieri, that these funds belonged to Olivieri, and that Klausner’s negligence exposed Olivieri to losing his funds to the corporation.
Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other....
* * * * *
It shifts the entire loss from one who, although without active negligence or fault, has been obligated to pay, because of some vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical liability, to another who should bear the costs because it was the latter’s wrongdoing for which the former is held liable.
Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490, 492-93 (Fla.1979).
If Klausner’s negligence in his representation of the corporation and Olivieri has exposed Olivieri to a loss, Olivieri has a right to seek indemnity against Klausner under Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.180. We therefore reverse the order dismissing the third party complaint.
DELL, C.J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gortz v. Lytal, 769 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at 1251-52. This court has held that defendants may bring contingent third-party claims for indemnification and contribution. See, e.g., Olivieri v. Florida Ass’n of Public Employee Pension Trustees, Inc., 627 So. 2d 1335, 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (reversing trial court’s holding that the defendant’s third-party complaint for indemnity against an attorney for malpractice did not state a cause of action because Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.180 provides the basis for the defendan…
Authorities Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)