Fish Tale Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nice
106 So. 3d 57
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Fish Tale sought leave to file a third‑party complaint against Chaparral, Federal‑Mogul, and Volvo arising from a boat explosion in which the Nices were injured.
- The Nices had previously sued Fish Tale plus other manufacturers/retailers for negligence and strict liability based on a defective fuel pump.
- The Nices later dropped the third parties from the underlying action without prejudice, without amended pleadings.
- Fish Tale’s motion to file a third‑party complaint was denied by the circuit court after a hearing (transcript not provided).
- Fish Tale argued it could pursue indemnity and contribution against the third‑party defendants under GML and Rule 14(c) and that such claims were ripe.
- The appellate court granted certiorari, quashing the order, and held that denial caused material, irreparable harm and departed from the law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial caused material irreparable harm | Fish Tale argues denial risks inconsistent outcomes and nonripable claims against third parties. | Nices contend no irreparable harm since potential indemnity/contribution would be ripe later and based on GML. | Yes; denial causes material, irreparable harm not remediable on appeal. |
| Whether Fish Tale could assert indemnity/contribution against third parties now | Fish Tale asserts nonnegligent tortfeasor status supports indemnity and contribution against manufacturers. | Nices say GML limits indemnity until damages paid and claims are ripe; stand-alone contribution not ripe. | Yes; third‑party claims for indemnity and contribution are viable at this stage. |
| Whether circuit court departed from essential requirements of law in denying the motion | Rule 1.180(a) supports liberal third‑party claims to bring all liable parties into one action; no prejudice to Nices. | Nices maintain lack of standing/ripe claims and concern for added resources. | Yes; circuit court departed from essential requirements by denying the motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (certiorari standard for essential requirements of law)
- Kelly v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 69 So.3d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (certiorari framework applied)
- Safecare Med. Ctr. v. Howard, 670 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (liberal allowance of third-party claims to fulfill rule 1.180)
- Hardy v. Gulf Oil Corp., 949 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1992) (indemnity available for nonnegligent tortfeasor against actual fault)
- Fuesting v. Lafayette Parish Bayou Vermilion Dist., 2007 WL 1728655 (W.D. La. 2007) (GML indemnity recognition)
- Sol v. City of Miami, 776 F.Supp.2d 1375 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (GML common liability and indemnity concepts)
- Columbus-McKinnon Corp. v. Ocean Prods. Research, Inc., 792 F.Supp.786 (M.D. Fla. 1992) (common liability supports contribution/indemnity)
- Lin-pro Fla. Inc. v. Almandinger, 603 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (indemnity considerations against co-debtor)
- Broward Marine, Inc. v. New England Marine Corp. of Del., 386 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (indemnity via nonnegligent tortfeasor context)