AEROVIAS, S.A. D/B/A AEROVIAS AIRLINES, APPELLANT,
v.
AIR HAITI, S.A., 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.
Aerovías Airlines appeals summary judgment denying its indemnity claim against Air Haiti for losses arising from a stolen automobile. The court reverses, holding that Aerovías can pursue indemnity from Air Haiti despite being held liable to the cargo owner, because Aerovías alleges only vicarious liability based on Air Haiti's negligence.
The court held that Aerovías' indemnity claim against Air Haiti is not precluded by the judgment against Aerovías in favor of Langer. An indemnitee who is innocent of active negligence may seek indemnification from an indemniteur, and material issues of fact remain regarding whether Air Haiti's negligence caused the loss.
[1] A claim for indemnity is not precluded when the indemnitee is only vicariously liable due to the indem-nitor's negligence, even if the indemnitee faced a judgment based o…
[2] A party seeking indemnity is not barred from recovery if they are innocent of active negligence and their liability arises solely from the negligence of the party from wh…
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“Although Langer's complaint against Aerovías included allegations of negligence, Aerovías, in its third-party complaint asserts that its liability to Langer arises only vicariously from Air Haiti's negligence.”
Establishes that Aerovías claims only vicarious liability, which distinguishes this case from the general rule precluding indemnification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAerovías contracted to transport Wolfgang Langer's BMW automobile from Miami to Guatemala and delivered it to shared storage facilities with Air Haiti…
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
FLETCHER, Judge.
Aerovías, S.A. d/b/a Aerovías Airlines appeals a final summary judgment denying its complaint against Air Haiti, S.A. for common law and contractual indemnity. We reverse.
Aerovías contracted with Wolfgang Langer to transport Langer’s BMW automobile from Miami to Guatemala, in furtherance of which Langer delivered the car to storage facilities shared by Aerovías and Air Haiti. The automobile was stolen before it could be shipped to Guatemala and Langer sued Aerovías for its failure to deliver the automobile to him upon his demand and presentation of the warehouse receipt. Aerovías then filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnity from Air Haiti, contending that Air Haiti’s negligence was the actual cause of the loss and that Aerovías was only vicariously liable based on the contract with Langer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Langer against Aerovías and in favor of Aerovías on the third-party complaint for indemnity against Air Haiti. A timely motion for rehearing was filed by Air Haiti as to Aerovías’ judgment against it, which motion was granted. Aerovías filed an untimely rehearing motion as to Langer’s judgment, which motion the trial court also granted.
Langer appealed the trial court’s rehearing order which set aside his summary final judgment against Aerovías. This Court, Langer v. Aerovias, S.A., 584 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), reversed the order granting Aerovías motion, thus reinstating Langer’s judgment against Aerovías. Simply put, when the dust had settled Langer had a judgment against Aerovías and Aerovías had no judgment against Air Haiti.
On remand, the trial court (albeit reluctantly) concluded that because Langer had alleged negligence against Aerovías, and a judgment had been entered against Aerovías in favor of Langer, indemnification was not available against Air Haiti. The trial court then granted a final summary judgment in favor of Air Haiti on the basis that Aerovías’ “wrongful act,” “adjudicated” by Langer’s summary judgment, precluded indemnification by Air Haiti.
The principle1 that the trial court believed to be controlling is inapplicable here. Although Langer’s complaint against Aerovías included allegations of negligence, Aerovías, in its third-party complaint asserts that its liability to Langer arises only vicariously from Air Haiti’s negligence. As a consequence, Aerovías’ maintenance of its indemnity claim against Air Haiti is not precluded. Julien P. Benjamin Equip. Co. v. Blackwell Burner Co., 450 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Indeed, we fail to discern that any just conclusion would result by precluding indemnification where an indemnitee is innocent of any active negligence, but the indem-nitor is not.
As material issues of fact remain unresolved, we reverse the summary final judgment and remand for further proceedings.
. That a former adjudication against an indemni-tee, finding the indemnitee's acts to be wrongful, is binding against the indemnitee and precludes indemnification (in the absence of a clear and unequivocal contractual expression to the contrary). See Hoskins v. Midland Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diplomat Props. Ltd. P'ship v. Tecnoglass, LLC, 114 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…omat, thereby precluding the indemnity claim. To be sure, a former adjudication against an indemni-tee, finding the indemnitee’s acts to be wrongful, is binding against the indemni-tee and precludes indemnification. Aerovias, SA. v. Air Haiti, S.A., 680 So. 2d 1077, 1078 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In this case, however, there is no finding in the four corners of the arbitrator’s award that Shower Glass improperly installed the glass doors or was otherwise “at fault” for the failure of the glass doors. Moreover,…
Authorities Cited
- Delbert Hoskins and Martha Hoskins v. Midland Ins. Co. a/s/o Resolute Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Wolfgang Langer v. Aerovias, S.A., 584 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Julien P. Benjamin Equip. Co. v. Blackwell Burner Co., 450 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)