Lambert Brothers, Inc. v. Mid-Park, Inc., 185 So. 3d 1266

Lambert Brothers (contractor) subcontracted with Mid-Park to "Furnish and Install Steel Toll Gantries" for a public toll-plaza project; subcontract also allocated taxes to the subcontractor.
Florida Department of Revenue assessed $77,654.56 sales/use tax tied to installation of the gantries; FDOR addressed assessment to Lambert.
Lambert notified Mid-Park, claimed Mid-Park installed the gantries and was responsible for the tax, and paid the assessment to avoid liens, then withheld (back-charged) the amount from Mid-Park.
Mid-Park sued Lambert for wrongful withholding; parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Mid-Park argued collateral estoppel from the FDOR proceedings and denied it performed the installation (calling "install" a scrivener’s error).
Trial court granted summary judgment for Mid-Park, finding collateral estoppel barred re-litigation and that Mid-Park did not install the gantries, so no taxable event under Florida law.
On appeal, the Fourth District reversed: collateral estoppel did not apply (no identical parties, no full adversarial administrative adjudication), and genuine fact issues remained as to who installed the gantries despite subcontract language.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of who installed the gantries	Lambert: FDOR process resolved tax liability; Mid-Park should be precluded from denying installation	Mid-Park: FDOR assessment/lack of participation precludes re-litigation; administrative finding should bind Lambert	Court: No — collateral estoppel inapplicable (different parties; administrative process not full adversarial litigation)
Whether Mid-Park was contractually obligated to pay taxes and install gantries	Lambert: Subcontract unambiguously required Mid-Park to "Furnish and Install" and pay taxes	Mid-Park: "Install" was a scrivener’s error; it only manufactured gantries and excluded tax	Court: Subcontract language obligates Mid-Park, but factual dispute exists about who actually installed; summary judgment improper
Whether a taxable event (installation on public works) occurred and who created it	Lambert: Mid-Park personnel performed on-site installation triggering tax	Mid-Park: Lambert performed erection/installation; no taxable event by Mid-Park	Court: Existence of a taxable event depends on disputed facts; cannot resolve on summary judgment
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Lambert: Facts and contract wording entitle it to judgment	Mid-Park: Administrative outcome and its factual assertions entitle it to judgment	Court: Reversed — genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Mid-Park

Eco-Tradition, LLC v. Pennzoil-Quaker State Co., 137 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
Wolf v. Sam’s E., Inc., 132 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (appellate courts construe facts in favor of non-moving party on summary judgment)
Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 155 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (summary judgment entered only when no genuine issue of material fact)
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Genovese, 138 So. 3d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (elements for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 853 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (res judicata/collateral estoppel require full adjudication resulting in final decision)
Emiddio v. Fla. Office of Fin. Regulation, 147 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (administrative proceedings less formal; caution in applying collateral estoppel)
Thomson v. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 511 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1987) (administrative adjudications often summary; collateral estoppel limited in administrative context)