FLORIDA CORVETTE CALIPERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CINCINNATI MILACRON MARKETING COMPANY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a setoff under section 768.041(2) because the plaintiff's separate fraud claim against the machine seller could not be offset by a prior negligence settlement with a different defendant, as they involve distinct causes of action and separate tortfeasors.
A setoff under section 768.041(2) is inappropriate when claims arise from separate causes of action against different defendants who cannot be deemed joint tortfeasors.
[1] A setoff under section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes, is limited to amounts recovered in settlements or judgments for the same damages or damage elements in the same cause…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“when one has separate claims a setoff is inappropriate”
Court citing its prior holding in Gordon v. Marvin M. Rosenberg, D.D.S. regarding the inapplicability of setoffs to separate claims
Appellant recovered a judgment against Southern Bell for negligence causing a power surge that damaged machines. Appellant then sued Cincinnati Milacr…
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 Comparative Fault cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We reverse the setoff granted under section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes. In Devlin v. McMannis, 231 So. 2d 194 (Fla.1970), the supreme court held that a setoff granted under that statute authorizes to be set off from a judgment against one joint tortfeasor only the amount constituting a settlement for the damages or damage elements recoverable in the same cause of action against another joint tortfeasor. We held in Gordon v. Marvin M. Rosenberg, D.D.S., 654 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), that “when one has separate claims a setoff is inappropriate.” 654 So. 2d at 645.
In an earlier action against Southern Bell, appellant recovered judgment on á jury verdict upon its claim that Southern Bell’s negligence caused a power surge that damaged certain machines it was operating. In this action, appellant sued the seller of the machines for fraud in the inducement. It is clear to us that these are two separate and distinct causes of action against separate and distinctly different defendants. Southern Bell and Cincinnati Milacron cannot possibly be deemed joint tortfeasors. Even if they could, it is impossible to tell whether fair market value was recovered in either of the actions maintained by appellant.
REVERSED.
GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blasland v. City OF N. Miami, 283 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2002)…First Am. Bank & Trust Co., 561 So. 2d 1229, 1230-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). It is not true, however, when the first and second lawsuits seek recovery for different injuries altogether. See Fla. Corvette Calipers, Inc. v. Cincinnati Milacron Mktg. Co., 670 So. 2d 1203, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Gordon v. Rosenberg, 654 So. 2d 643, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Finally, in cases in which a set off of the recovery in prior litigation is in order, the entire amount of the prior recovery must be setoff against the curren…
Authorities Cited
- Devlin v. McMANNIS, 231 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1970)
- Gordon v. Marvin M. Rosenberg, D.D.S., P.A., 654 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)