Bravo Electric Co. v. Carter Electric Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bravo Electric Co. v. Carter Electric Co.

532 So. 2d 698, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2062, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3872, 1988 WL 89694

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 1988

DocketNo. 87-667

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 532 So. 2d 698 (Bravo Electric Co. v. Carter Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bravo Electric Co. v. Carter Electric Co., 532 So. 2d 698, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2062, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3872, 1988 WL 89694 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

COBB, Judge.

Bravo Electric Company appeals a partial summary judgment holding it liable for attorney fees and costs incurred by Carter Electric Company in defending a negligence action brought against them jointly. The suit alleged that Bravo was actively negligent and that Carter was vicariously liable.

Faced with defending that action below, Carter’s insurer demanded that Bravo provide a defense and hold it harmless for the costs. Bravo’s insurer denied this demand even though it was fully justified under common law principles of indemnity. Bravo was unwilling to provide any defense to Carter, even one in common with itself. Therefore, Carter’s insurer had no alternative but to retain its own counsel and present its own defense.

The trial judge was eminently correct in entering summary judgment for Carter and its insurer on the issue of Bravo’s liability for attorney fees and costs. Moreover, Bravo has not even raised as a point on appeal the argument urged by the dissent; absent fundamental error, it should not be considered. See Lynch v. Tennyson, 443 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The argument advanced by Bravo on appeal is that Carter’s counsel employed a closing argument at trial which was detrimental to Bravo, an argument totally irrelevant to the issue of indemnification between an actively negligent and passively negligent tort-feasor.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, J., concurs. COWART, J., dissents with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COBB, Judge.

Bravo Electric Company appeals a partial summary judgment holding it liable for attorney fees and costs incurred by Carter Electric Company in defending a negligence action brought against them jointly. The suit alleged that Bravo was actively negligent and that Carter was vicariously liable.

Faced with defending that action below, Carter’s insurer demanded that Bravo provide a defense and hold it harmless for the costs. Bravo’s insurer denied this demand even though it was fully justified under common law principles of indemnity. Bravo was unwilling to provide any defense to Carter, even one in common with itself. Therefore, Carter’s insurer had no alternative but to retain its own counsel and present its own defense.

The trial judge was eminently correct in entering summary judgment for Carter and its insurer on the issue of Bravo’s liability for attorney fees and costs. Moreover, Bravo has not even raised as a point on appeal the argument urged by the dissent; absent fundamental error, it should not be considered. See Lynch v. Tennyson, 443 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The argument advanced by Bravo on appeal is that Carter’s counsel employed a closing argument at trial which was detrimental to Bravo, an argument totally irrelevant to the issue of indemnification between an actively negligent and passively negligent tort-feasor.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, J., concurs. COWART, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 So. 2d 698, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2062, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3872, 1988 WL 89694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bravo-electric-co-v-carter-electric-co-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack