SOL v. City of Miami
776 F. Supp. 2d 1375
| S.D. Fla. | 2011Background
- This maritime tort case arises from a February 2008 collision between the Contender Fishing Vessel and a Miami Police boat in Miami Harbor; Fritzler piloted the Contender and Estevez piloted the police boat; Sol was injured.
- Sol settled with Fritzler and Fireman's Fund in September 2010 and dismissed claims against all defendants; Fritzler and Fireman's Fund now seek reimbursement from City and Estevez via cross-claims for indemnity and contribution.
- Fritzler asserts four counts: indemnity and alternative contribution against the City (Counts 1 and 2) and indemnity and contribution against Estevez (Counts 3 and 4).
- Fireman's Fund asserts indemnity and contribution claims against both the City and Estevez.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the cross-claims; the court granted in part and denied in part.
- The court analyzes indemnity under general maritime law and the viability of contribution between concurrent tortfeasors, followed by qualified-immunity considerations for Estevez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fritzler may indemnify from the City under maritime law. | Fritzler is a non-negligent tortfeasor entitled to indemnity from the City. | Indemnity applies only to vicariously liable or truly non-negligent tortfeasors; Fritzler is negligent. | Indemnity claims against the City are dismissed. |
| Whether Fritzler can seek contribution from the City for a common liability. | Fritzler and the City may share responsibility for Sol's injuries; a contribution claim exists. | If there is common liability, contribution can proceed; the City may be partly responsible. | Contribution claim against the City may proceed. |
| Whether Fireman’s Fund can seek contribution/indemnity from the City for the Sol settlement. | Fireman’s Fund seeks same maritime indemnity/contribution rights as Fritzler. | Similar enforcement as Fritzler’s claims; may be redundant but distinguishable. | Fireman’s Fund contribution claim against the City shall proceed; indemnity claim dismissed. |
| Whether Fritzler’s and Fireman’s Fund’s claims against Officer Estevez are barred by qualified immunity. | Maritime navigation rules were clearly established; Estevez violated them. | Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established right was shown to be violated. | Fritzler’s and Fireman’s claims against Estevez are dismissed; Estevez entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether Fireman's Fund’s cross-claims against Estevez/City survive in any form. | Fireman’s Fund should have the same relief as Fritzler. | Qualified immunity and lack of clear law defeat some cross-claims; not all are barred. | Fireman's Fund’s claims against Estevez are dismissed; its contribution claim against the City shall proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus-McKinnon Corp. v. Ocean Products Research, Inc., 792 F.Supp. 786 (M.D. Fla. 1992) (indemnity under Marathon/Hardy framework; non-negligent tortfeasor defined)
- Hardy v. Gulf Oil Corp., 949 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1992) (non-negligent tortfeasor defined; indemnity limited to those with responsibility though non-negligent)
- Marathon Pipe Line Co. v. Drilling Rig ROWAN/ODESSA, 761 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1985) ( Marathon theory applies to both vicarious and non-negligent tortfeasors)
- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Chevron Shipping Co., 957 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1992) (contribution among concurrent tortfeasors requires common legal liability)
- Self v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., 832 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1987) (contribution framework in maritime context)
- Simeon v. T. Smith & Son, 852 F.2d 1421 (5th Cir. 1988) (common legal liability principle in maritime contribution)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity framework; purpose to protect officials)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (scope of discretionary authority and immunity analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis; 'clearly established' rights)
- McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2007) (necessary criteria for clearly established law; notice to officer)
- Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000) (notice requirement for clearly established rights in maritime context)
- McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2009) (expands discretionary authority interpretation for immunity scope)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (clear delineation of rights to establish clearly established law)