Florida Corvette Calipers, Inc. v. Cincinnati Milacron Marketing Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Corvette Calipers, Inc. v. Cincinnati Milacron Marketing Co.

670 So. 2d 1203, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3561, 1996 WL 165409

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1602

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 1203 (Florida Corvette Calipers, Inc. v. Cincinnati Milacron Marketing 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

Florida Corvette Calipers, Inc. v. Cincinnati Milacron Marketing Co., 670 So. 2d 1203, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3561, 1996 WL 165409 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

FARMER, Judge.

We reverse the setoff granted under section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes. In Devlin v. McMannis, 231 So.2d 194 (Fla.1970), the supreme court held that a setoff granted under that statute authorizes to be set off from a judgment against one joint tortfeasor only the amount constituting a settlement for the damages or damage elements recoverable in the same cause of action against another joint tortfeasor. We held in Gordon v. Marvin M. Rosenberg, D.D.S., 654 So.2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), that “when one has separate claims a setoff is inappropriate.” 654 So.2d at 645.

In an earlier action against Southern Bell, appellant recovered judgment on á jury verdict upon its claim that Southern Bell’s negligence caused a power surge that damaged certain machines it was operating. In this action, appellant sued the seller of the machines for fraud in the inducement. It is clear to us that these are two separate and distinct causes of action against separate and distinctly different defendants. Southern Bell and Cincinnati Milacron cannot possibly be deemed joint tortfeasors. Even if they could, it is impossible to tell whether fair market value was recovered in either of the actions maintained by appellant.

REVERSED.

GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

FARMER, Judge.

We reverse the setoff granted under section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes. In Devlin v. McMannis, 231 So.2d 194 (Fla.1970), the supreme court held that a setoff granted under that statute authorizes to be set off from a judgment against one joint tortfeasor only the amount constituting a settlement for the damages or damage elements recoverable in the same cause of action against another joint tortfeasor. We held in Gordon v. Marvin M. Rosenberg, D.D.S., 654 So.2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), that “when one has separate claims a setoff is inappropriate.” 654 So.2d at 645.

In an earlier action against Southern Bell, appellant recovered judgment on á jury verdict upon its claim that Southern Bell’s negligence caused a power surge that damaged certain machines it was operating. In this action, appellant sued the seller of the machines for fraud in the inducement. It is clear to us that these are two separate and distinct causes of action against separate and distinctly different defendants. Southern Bell and Cincinnati Milacron cannot possibly be deemed joint tortfeasors. Even if they could, it is impossible to tell whether fair market value was recovered in either of the actions maintained by appellant.

REVERSED.

GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 So. 2d 1203, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3561, 1996 WL 165409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-corvette-calipers-inc-v-cincinnati-milacron-marketing-co-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack