MARK LAMET, M.D., P.A.,
v.
FEINERMAN ANESTHESIA, P.A.
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 common law indemnification claim requires both that the indemnitee be faultless and that the indemnitee's liability be solely vicarious for the wrongdoing of another.
[1] A common law indemnification claim requires satisfaction of a two-pronged test: the indemnitee must be faultless, and the indemnitee's liability must be solely vicarious…
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“In order for a common law indemnity claim to stand, a two-pronged test must be satisfied: (1) the indemnitee must be faultless and (2) the indemnitee's liability must be solely vicarious for the wrongdoing of another.”
Court's statement of the legal standard for common law indemnification claims, citing Zeiger Crane Rentals, Inc. v. Double A Indus., Inc., 16 So. 3d 907, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Appellant Mark Lamet, M.D., P.A. sued Feinerman Anesthesia, P.A. for common law indemnification. The trial court dismissed the claim without prejudice…
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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
MARK LAMET, M.D., P.A., Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
V.
FEINERMAN ANESTHESIA, P.A., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 4D2025-1818
[July 29, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; William W. Haury, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 062023CA014127AXXXCE.
Lawrence R. Metsch of Metschlaw, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Dinah S. Stein of Hicks, Porter, & Stein, P.A., Miami, and M. Katherine Hunter of Chimpoulis & Hunter, P.A., Plantation, for appellee/crossappellant.
LOTT, J.
Appellant sued Cross-Appellant for common law indemnification. The trial court dismissed the claim without prejudice.
We do not pass on the trial court's ruling; instead, we accept Cross- Appellant's alternative argument that the allegations in Appellant's complaint wholly fail to, and cannot, state a claim for common law indemnification. See Zeiger Crane Rentals, Inc. v. Double A Indus., Inc., 16 So. 3d 907, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“In order for a common law indemnity claim to stand, a two-pronged test must be satisfied: (1) the indemnitee must be faultless and (2) the indemnitee's liability must be solely vicarious for the wrongdoing of another.” (citations omitted)).
Appellant does not address this argument at all in briefing.
Accordingly, we accept Cross-Appellant's argument and remand with instructions to dismiss the claim for common law indemnity with prejudice.
We affirm without discussion as to all other matters raised in Appellant's appeal.
Vacated and remanded.
SHEPHERD, J., and COATES, JR., HOWARD K., Associate Judge, concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zeiger Crane Rentals, Inc. v. Double A Indus., Inc., 16 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)