FULLERTON METAL COMPANY AND ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ABELL HOWE COMPANY AND CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that a statutory amendment eliminating a cause of action should not be applied retrospectively unless the legislature clearly intends it.
Plaintiffs sued for indemnification after settling a wrongful death claim. The legislature subsequently amended the relevant statute to eliminate such…
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 Prospective Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Walsh, an employee of defendant Central Air Conditioning Company, was killed July 25, 1969 while working at the Fullerton Metals plant. Fullerton Metals, plaintiff herein, was sued as a result of the accident, and its insurance carrier, plaintiff Zurich Insurance Company settled the claim with decedent’s estate for a substantial sum of money.
Thereafter, on May 18, 1971, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant Central Air Conditioning Company for indemnification.
The legislature of Florida amended Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, effective June 18, 1971, so as to eliminate the type cause of action sued upon by the plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that the amendment to such statute must be given retrospective application. Plaintiffs appealed from such order. The effect of the ruling by the trial court was to destroy an existing cause of action being litigated at the time the amendment became effective.
The rule is clear in this state that ,a statute shall operate prospectively unless the legislature clearly sets forth its intent that the same shall have retrospective application. No such intent is in any way legislatively suggested by the amendment. See State v. Green, Fla.1958, 101 So. 2d 805.
The order dismissing the complaint is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucien H. Martel v. Gibeaut, Inc., 330 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…committed error in failing to apply the requirements of the Workmen’s Compensation Law as enacted on the date of the accident.” In a case involving the converse of our factual situation, Fullerton Metal Company v. Abell Howe Company, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 151, the Third District Court of Appeal held an amendment to a Workmen’s Compensation Act statute could not be applied retrospectively so as to destroy an existing cause of action. In that case Walsh, while an employee of Central Air Conditioning Compan…
-
In re Est. of Louise B. Rincon, 327 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1976)…hreys, 299 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1974) ; In re Estate of Arner, 218 So. 2d 471 (Ma.App.1969), cert. den. 225 So. 2d 916 (Fla.). . Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351, 94 S.Ct. 1734, 40 L.Ed.2d 189 (1974). . Id. . Fullerton Metal Company v. Abell Howe Company, 299 So. 2d 151 (Fla.App.1974).…
-
Burris v. Goodyear, 577 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…mpensation controls the issue of insurance, and it was of no consequence that, as of the date of trial, the law had been changed to require a lesser number of employees), cert, denied, 333 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1976); Fullerton Metal Co. v. Abell Howe Co., 299 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (an amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law, eliminating a cause of indemnity, could not be applied retrospectively so as to destroy a cause of action which was in litigation at the time the amendment became effective). The ge…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Green, 101 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1958)