COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, 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.
The court held that summary judgment was properly granted on the contribution claim but improperly granted on the indemnity claim due to genuine issues of material fact regarding active versus passive negligence.
[1] Summary judgment for contribution under Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1975) may be affirmed when supported by relevant case law.
[2] On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact, with all doubts and inferences resolv…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants appealed the entry of final summary judgment against them on their third-party complaint for indemnity and contribution. The trial court gr…
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 Passive Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Appellants/third party plaintiffs Commercial Union Insurance Company and Otis Elevator Company appeal the entry of final summary judgment against them and in favor of appellee/third party defendant Bayfront Medical Center on the third party complaint for indemnity and contribution. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm the summary judgment for appellee/third party defendant on Count II which sought contribution pursuant to Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1975). See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1978); Armor Elevator Company, Inc. v. Elevator Sales & Service, Inc., 360 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
We reverse the summary judgment for appellee/third party defendant on Count I which sought indemnity on the theory that appellee Bayfront was an active tort feasor, whereas appellant Otis’ negligence, if any, was passive. It is axiomatic that on motion for summary judgment, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and all doubts and inferences must be resolved against the movant. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Company, 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). In third party suits for indemnity, summary judgments should not be granted for the third party defendant unless no version of the facts could support the indemnity claimed. Home Indemnity Company v. Edwards, 360 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The record herein clearly reveals the existence of issues of material fact regarding the active or passive nature of the negligence of the parties, and the trial court thus erred in its entry of summary judgment on the indemnity count. These questions of fact should be resolved by the jury as trier of fact and not by the court on summary judgment. Home Indemnity Company v. Edwards, supra; Florida Power Corporation v. Taylor, 332 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND this cause for further proceedings consistent herewith.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeCARLO v. Clem H. Sammons, 375 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…nterrogatories and request for admissions, has been undertaken. See Roll v. Talcott, [*352] 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); and see Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977); Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Bayfront Medical Center, 363 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); and O’Grady v. Wickman, 213 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). It is entirely possible that the trial court was influenced in this cause by the fact that the record is susceptible to a conclusion that the defendant has been dilator…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Rivers v. Ross, 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1978)
- Fla. Power Corp. v. Taylor, 332 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Home Indem. Co. v. Edwards, 360 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Armor Elevator Co., Inc. v. Elevator Sales & Serv., Inc., 360 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)