FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH M. POSTOL, 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.
A bailee-for-hire whose negligence caused injury to a third party must indemnify the bailor for attorney's fees incurred in defending the resulting lawsuit. The court affirmed an award of $1,000 in attorney's fees to the bailor against the bailee, establishing that attorney's fees are recoverable as part of indemnity damages.
Yes. An indemnitee is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees as part of the damages resulting from indemnity, even absent statutory authorization or express contract, when the indemnitee is compelled to incur such fees defending against suits arising from the indemnitor's negligence.
“whether a bailee-for-hire, whose negligent operation of an automobile results in an action being brought by a third party against the bailor, should be required to indemnify the bailor for attorney's fees expended in defense of the action”
States the central legal question presented for decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee left his automobile with the appellant hotel for parking. During parking, the appellant's employee negligently caused an accident injurin…
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 Cross-Claim For Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of an order .granting judgment for $1,000 in attorney’s fees to the appellee.
The appellee entrusted his automobile to his wife, who drove to the appellant's hotel and, for a money consideration, turned it over to appellant’s employee to be parked. While attempting to park the car, the employee was involved in an accident which resulted in personal injuries to Benjamin Ragin. Ragin brought a negligence action, naming appellant and appellee as parties defendant. The appellee filed a cross-claim seeking to recover from the appellant the exact amount of damages he might suffer as a result of the action. At the trial, appellant and appellee stipulated that a bailment-for-hire existed between them; that the appellant was the sole wrongdoer, and appellee was liable vicariously, if at all; and that in the event Ragin received a judgment against the appellee, appellee was entitled to a judgment against the appellant in like amount. There was no agreement or stipulation between the parties relative to attorney’s fees, nor are such fees authorized by statute in this case. Ragin recovered a verdict for $6,037 which was satisfied by the appellant. Subsequently, the trial court entered the order appealed granting judgment in favor of the appellee against the appellant for $1,000 in attorney’s fees in defending the action.
The determinative question here is whether a bailee-for-hire, whose negligent operation of an automobile results in an action being brought by a third party against the bailor, should be required to indemnify the bailor for attorney’s fees expended in defense of the action.
The appellant urges the applicability to this case of the rule that attorney’s fees cannot be charged in the absence of statutory authority, unless the defendant is bound for their payment by contract. Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 435; Thibert v. Thibert, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 918; Dorner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So.2d 160; Brite v. Orange Belt Securities Co., 133 Fla. 266, 182 So. 892. The situation involved in the instant case does not appear to be within the purview of this rule.
In the instant case, an indemni-tee is seeking to recover an attorney’s fee as a part of the damages to which he is entitled.1 The rule applicable to such a situation is stated in 42 C.J.S. Indemnity § 13d:
“As a general rule an indemnitee is entitled to recover, as a part of the damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and reasonable and proper legal costs and expenses, which he is compelled to pay as a result of suits by or against him in reference to the matter against which he is indemnified * *
To the same effect is 27 Am.Jur., Indemnity, § 27.
In the light of the foregoing, the order appealed should be, and is accordingly, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Mims Crane Serv., Inc. v. Insley Mfg. Corp., 226 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…f and against the third party plaintiff in the original action.” Also, the prayer for attorneys’ fees and costs of defending the original action — proper elements in an indemnification action, Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation v. Postol, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 299; 42 C.J.S. Indemnity § 13d; 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indemnity § 36 — would indicate that the action was for indemnification. The original complaint of Cyanamid alleged negligence of Mims in furnishing “a motorized Insley truck-crane with a defective and inade…
-
Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d to indemnity may recover as damages “. . . reasonable attorneys fees and . .. costs11 . . . which he is compelled to pay as a result of suits by him or against him in reference to [the indemnity action].” Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation v. Postol, 142 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). In Trustees of Cameron-Brown Investment Group v. Tavormina, 385 So. 2d 728, 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), we held that a party entitled to recover attorneys’ fees as indemnification damages may recover “the amount he must pay his…
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. City OF OPA Locka, 368 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ul indemnitee may recover attorney’s fees for the prosecution of the indemnification case itself, even without a contractual or statutory basis for such an allowance. The Brown opinion cites only our decisions in Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Postol, 142 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), and Thomas Awning & Tent Co., Inc. v. [*421] Toby’s Twelfth Cafeteria, Inc., 204 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The holding in the Postol case, which was quoted and followed in the Thomas Awning case, deals, however, only with th…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Am. Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1932)
- Adeline M. Dorner v. RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882 (Fla. 1948)
- Brite v. Orange Belt Sec. Co., 133 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1938)
- Hutchins v. Frank E. Campbell, Inc., 123 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Thibert v. Thibert, 106 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 128 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)