114 So. 3d 357
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Diplomat owns the Westin Diplomat Resort; Shower Concepts installed glass doors via contract; Tecnoglass fabricated the doors; 39 doors fractured post-opening due to nickel sulfide inclusions; Diplomat obtained an arbitration award against Shower Concepts for breach of contract; Shower Concepts assigned its third-party claims to Diplomat; Diplomat, now in Shower Concepts’ shoes, filed a multi-count complaint including a common law indemnity claim against Tecnoglass; Tecnoglass moved to dismiss the indemnity claim; the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice; on appeal, Diplomat argues the indemnity claim was properly pleaded and should not have been dismissed; the court applies de novo review and hinges on Houdaille principles and the need (or not) for a special relationship; the court reverses and remands, holding the indemnity claim may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a common law indemnity claim was adequately pleaded | Diplomat alleged Shower Concepts was vicariously/constructively liable for Tecnoglass’s fault. | Tecnoglass argued no special relationship and no fault-based basis pleaded. | Yes, the claim was adequately pleaded and should not have been dismissed. |
| Whether a ‘special relationship’ is required to plead indemnity | A satisfied two-prong test shows faultless indemnity despite contract-based fault. | A special relationship is necessary to permit indemnity against a third party. | A special relationship is not strictly required in pleading if other factors show faultlessness and vicarious/derivative liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1979) (establishes two-prong test and fault-based inquiry for indemnity)
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (requires party seeking indemnity to be without fault and that indemnity comes from a faultful party; special relationship discussed)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Ace Elec. Serv., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 1371 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (foreign-federal analysis supporting indemnity where non-fault party can be indemnified from supplier)
- Hiller Group, Inc. v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 779 So.2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (indemnity against supplier for defective product delivery)
- K-Mart Corp. v. Chairs, Inc., 506 So.2d 7 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (mere selling of defective product may give rise to vicarious/derivative liability for indemnity)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 763 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (pleading indemnity requires plaintiff to be without fault and to allege its vicarious/derivative liability)