THE HILLER GROUP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
REDWING CARRIERS, INC., 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.
Hiller Group appeals a summary judgment denying its claim for indemnification and attorney's fees against Redwing Carriers. The court reverses, holding that Hiller, which was dragged into litigation through no fault of its own due to Redwing's negligent delivery of contaminated fuel, is entitled to indemnification including attorney's fees from the party whose wrongful acts caused the exposure to liability.
Hiller is entitled to indemnification from Redwing, including for attorney's fees, because Hiller was exposed to liability through no act of its own but due to the wrongful acts of Redwing, and under Florida law an indemnitee is entitled to recover not only judgments against it but also attorney's fees and court costs.
[1] Indemnity is the right of one who discharges a duty that is owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other.
[2] In Florida, actions for indemnity are restricted to situations involving either a duty, an express contract, or the existence of active and passive negligence.
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“Indemnity is the right which inures to one who discharges a duty that is owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other.”
Establishes the fundamental definition and purpose of indemnity under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoat owners sued Stump Pass Marina over contaminated fuel purchased from the marina. The marina filed a third-party complaint against Redwing Carriers…
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 Right Of Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
The Hiller Group, Inc., appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of Redwing Carriers, Inc., on Hiller’s claims for indemnification for attorney’s fees. We reverse.
The underlying complaint sought damages as a result of contaminated fuel purchased by boat owners from Stump Pass Marina. The marina filed a third-party complaint for negligence against Redwing, which had transported and delivered the fuel, and for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and indemnification against Hil-ler, which brokered the fuel transaction. The fuel contamination occurred when a Redwing employee improperly pumped the wrong fuel into the marina’s fuel storage tank or tanks. Hiller filed a cross-complaint against Redwing for indemnification and contribution. Eventually, Red-wing settled all the claims. Hiller, however, refused to dismiss its cross-claim and continued to insist on its entitlement to indemnity-based attorney’s fees.
The trial court considered the matter by way of Redwing’s summary judgment motion. Redwing argued Hiller was not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees because there was no written contract between Redwing and Hiller nor any other legal basis for an award of fees under the circumstances. After numerous memoranda addressed to the matter, the trial court granted Redwing’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment denying Hiller’s claim for attorney’s fees.
“Indemnity is the right which inures to one who discharges a duty that is owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other.” Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla.1979). In Florida, actions for indemnity have been restricted to situations involving either a duty, an express contract, or the existence of active and passive negligence. See Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla.1977). Under Florida law, an indem-nitee is entitled to indemnification not only for the judgment entered against it, but also for attorney’s fees and court costs. See Pender v. Skillcraft Indus., Inc., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. King, 340 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Hiller was brought into the case by the marina’s third-party complaint. The marina based its claims against Hiller on actions for breach of warranty and breach of contract. Under either claim, the negligent action was committed by Redwing. Hiller was exposed to liability through no act of its own, but due to the wrongful acts of another, Redwing. Accordingly, Hiller was entitled to indemnification by Red-wing, including for its attorney’s fees.
We, therefore, conclude that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Redwing. We reverse the judgment and remand with instructions that the trial judge award reasonable attorney’s fees, following a hearing, to Hiller. Reversed and remanded.
GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tank Tech, Inc. v. Valley Tank Testing, 244 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Diplomat Props. Ltd. P'ship v. Tecnoglass, LLC, 114 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…trical work, could maintain a common law indemnity claim against a design professional “to the extent the City is found to be without fault for the conduct which forms the basis of the indemnity claim”); Hiller Group, Inc. v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 779 So. 2d 602, 608-04 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a fuel broker, which was sued by a marina for breach of warranty and breach of contract arising out of contaminated fuel, was entitled to indemnification from the company that improperly pumped the wrong fuel…
Authorities Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Frank M. Stuart, M.D., P.A. v. The HERTZ Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1977)
- Pender v. Skillcraft Indus., Inc., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & Ford Motor Co. v. Gena M. King, 340 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)