HEAPY ENGINEERING, LLP, APPELLANT,
v.
PURE LODGING, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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.
Heapy Engineering appealed a summary judgment in favor of Pure Lodging on a common law indemnity claim arising from mold damage in motels. The court reversed the summary judgment due to disputed material facts regarding fault and notice, while affirming the denial of a motion to strike affidavits.
Summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes existed as to Heapy's sole fault and whether it was given notice and opportunity to participate in the settlement. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for trial.
[1] A party seeking common law indemnity must demonstrate that the indemnitee was without fault and solely vicariously liable for the wrongdoing of another, and that the inde…
[2] A settlement agreement in an underlying action against an indemnitee can bind the indemnitor if the indemnitor received notice of the claim and an opportunity to defend,…
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“In order to prevail on a common law indemnity claim, the following two-pronged test must be satisfied: (1) the party seeking indemnity (the indemnitee) must be without fault and its liability must be solely vicarious for the wrongdoing of another, and (2) the party against whom indemnity is sought (the indemnitor) must be wholly at fault.”
Establishes the two-element test required for common law indemnity claims in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePure Lodging hired Braun & Steidl Architects to design two motels, which in turn hired Heapy Engineering to design the HVAC system. After the motels o…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Defend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Heapy Engineering, LLP, seeks review of a summary final judgment entered against it and in favor of appellee, Pure Lodging, Ltd., on a claim for common law indemnity. Appellant also seeks re view of the trial court’s denial of its motion to strike two affidavits filed in support of appellee’s summary judgment motion. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to strike and denial of appellant’s motion for summary judgment without further comment. However, we reverse the summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee because of disputed issues of fact.
In order to prevail on a common law indemnity claim, the following-two-pronged test must be satisfied: (1) the party seeking indemnity (the indemnitee) must be without fault and its liability must be solely vicarious for the wrongdoing of another, and (2) the party against whom indemnity is sought (the indemnitor) must be wholly at fault. See Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 642 (Fla.1999); Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490, 493 (Fla.1979). Once a legal obligation has been established in the underlying action on the part of the indemnitee, the indemnitor will become bound by a settlement agreement in a suit against the indemnitee if the indem-nitor was given notice of the claim and was afforded an opportunity to appear and defend the claim, as long as the settlement was not the result of fraud or collusion. Bagley v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 505 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Appellee engaged Braun & Steidl Architects, Inc. to design two motels. Braun & Steidl in turn hired appellant to design the air ventilation system (HVAC) in the motels. Shortly after the motels opened, mold and mildew were discovered in the bathrooms, corridors, and stairwells. Ap-pellee filed an arbitration claim against Braun & Steidl, alleging that Braun & Steidl was hable for the damage. As part of the settlement agreement, Braun & Steidl assigned its rights in contribution and/or indemnity against appellant to appellee.
Because our review of the record establishes that genuiné issues of material fact exist as to whether appellant is wholly at fault for the damage, and whether appellant was given notice and an opportunity to participate in settlement negotiations, we are constrained to reverse, and remand for further proceedings. See Jones v. Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(ruhng that on a motion for summary judgment “if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied”).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dillard & Assocs. Consulting Eng'rs & John A. Dillard, Jr. v. Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot., 893 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ment agreement in a suit against the indemnitee if there has been notice of the claim and an opportunity to appear and defend the claim, and as long as the settlement was not the result of fraud or collusion); Heapy Eng’g, LLP v. Pure Lodging, Ltd., 849 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (same).4 Therefore, as DEP contends, Dillard & Associates may contest its potential liability on any basis DOT may assert it is liable, in circuit court rather than in an administrative hearing. See Hull & Co. v. McGetrick,…
-
Brother's Painting & Pressure Cleaning Corp. v. Curry-Dixon Constr., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…n by the party held vicariously liable.”). Further, based on the undisputed facts, Curry-Dixon’s settlement with the Plaintiffs does not preclude Curry-Dixon’s indemnity claim against Brother’s Painting. See Heapy Eng’g, LLP v. Pure Lodging, Ltd., 849 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“Once a legal obligation has been established in the underlying action on the part of the indemnitee, the indemnitor will become bound by a settlement agreement in a suit against the indemnitee if the indemnitor was given n…
-
Silberman v. Premier Beauty & Health LLC (S.D. Fla. 2021)…derivatively, or technically liable for the wrongful acts of the party from whom he is seeking indemnity. Underwriters at Int. v. All Logistics Grp., Inc., 483 F. Supp. 3d 1199, 1208 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (citing Heapy Eng’g, LLP v. Pure Lodging, Ltd., 849 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). “Moreover, recovery for common law indemnity is precluded if both parties are at fault, no matter how slight the fault of the party seeking indemnity.” Id. “To be wholly without fault means that the basis of the claim for…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Bagley v. The W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 505 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)