B & J VAN BEBER EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY PEDERSEN AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 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.
B & J Van Beber Equipment Rental, Inc. appealed a summary judgment dismissing its negligence action against Dorothy Pedersen and State Farm. The court reversed, finding that a prior settlement and release between Pedersen and the individual Van Bebers (Boyd and Justine) did not necessarily bind the corporation that owned the damaged vehicle, creating genuine issues of material fact.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the corporation was bound by the prior settlement and release executed by the individuals. The fact that the first complaint referred to 'Plaintiffs motor vehicle' while the second referred to 'Plaintiff's Dump Truck' owned by the corporation created ambiguity about the parties' intent to bind the corporate entity.
[1] A prior settlement and release executed by individuals does not necessarily preclude a subsequent claim by a corporation, even if the individuals are associated with the…
[2] Summary judgment is improper when the record contains insufficient evidence to negate all material allegations in the plaintiff's complaint.
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“In our opinion, the trial court erred in entering summary final judgment where there is not sufficient evidence in the record to negate all material allegations in the plaintiff's complaint.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment and the error committed by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 4, 1973, a vehicle driven by Boyd Van Beber collided with a vehicle driven by Dorothy Pedersen. Boyd and Justine Van Beber sued for personal in…
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 Corporate Veil cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, B & J Van Beber Equipment Rental, Inc., takes this appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of the defendants, Dorothy Pedersen and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, in an action for damages stemming from an automobile accident.
The record reflects that on May 4, 1973, the vehicle driven by Boyd Van Beber was involved in a collision with the vehicle driven by Dorothy Pedersen. In 1974, a complaint was filed by Boyd Van Beber and Justine Van Beber, his wife, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Boyd Van Beber in the accident, and including the following allegation:
“Plaintiffs motor vehicle was damaged to where he lost the value of his. interest in it and the value of its use durning (sic) the time required to make the necessary repairs to it and Plaintiff, BOYD VAN BEBER, has had to spend some money to repair said vehicle.”
In October of 1975, the parties stipulated and the court ordered that the cause be dismissed with prejudice, as a settlement had been reached. By the terms of a release executed on September 30, 1975, in consideration of the amount of $5,000, Boyd Van Beber and Justine Van Beber made
“. . . a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement of any and all claims, disputed or otherwise, on account of the injuries and damages above mentioned, . . .for the express purpose of precluding forever any further or additional claims arising out of the aforesaid accident.”
On December 9, 1975, the instant action was commenced by the filing of a complaint against the same defendants, Pedersen and her insurer, State Farm. The named plaintiff is B & J Van Beber Equipment Rental, Inc. The complaint alleges that,
“. . . Plaintiffs Dump Truck was damaged to where Plaintiff’s (sic) lost the value of its interest in it and the value of its use during the time it required to make necessary repairs to it and Plaintiff has had to spend large sums of money for repair of said vehicle. Further, Plaintiff suffered a business loss and loss of profits since Plaintiff was unable to use said vehicle as a result of the forementioned (sic) accident.”
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and in support thereof attached certified copies of the prior complaint, the stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, the order of dismissal and a copy of the release executed by the Van Bebers. The trial judge heard the motion, granted it and entered summary final judgment in favor of the defendants.
In our opinion, the trial court erred in entering summary final judgment where there is not sufficient evidence in the record to negate all material allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint. For example, in the first action in which Boyd and Justine Van Beber as individuals, were the plaintiffs, the complaint refers to “Plaintiffs motor vehicle,” and the complaint in the pending action refers to “Plaintiff’s Dump Truck,” the plaintiff being the corporation. The stipulation for order of dismissal and the release which were executed in the first action were entered into between the defendants and the Van Bebers as individuals. We are unable to conclude from this record that it was the intent of those parties to bind the corporation, alleged to be the owner of the damaged truck in this action. Accordingly, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact to be determined in this case. The summary final judgment, is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1979); Bankers Ins. Service Corp. v. Southeastern Home Mortgage Co., 363 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Lauer v. Wilson, 355 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); B & J Van Beber Equipment Rental, Inc. v. Pedersen, 348 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mathews Corp. v. Tutten Enterprises, Inc., 343 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Sullivan v. Bloom, 342 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Stone v. Lingerfeldt, 330 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Carter v. Dade County, 213 So. 2d 594…
-
Wills v. Wills, 399 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…Parker, at 126. In dealing with visitation rights of grandparents, several cases have held that a non-parent of a child whose custody has been awarded to a fit parent has no such rights as they are unjustified and unenforceable. Tamargo v. Tamargo, 348 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); Sheehy v. Sheehy, 325 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975); Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 295 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974); Lee v. Kepler, 197 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967). Each of these cases relies on Parker, supra. The legislature ha…1 / 2
-
Moore v. Cezar Trevino, 612 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…re is a substantial body of law holding that visitation rights to a non-parent is unjustified and unenforceable. See, e.g., Sandor v. Sandor, 444 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sheehy v. Sheehy, 325 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Tamargo v. Tamargo, 348 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 295 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). At bar, aside from the trial court’s lack of authority to make such an award, the mother opposes it vehemently; she maintains that the aunts undermine her authority and a…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence