Jedak Corp. v. Seabreeze

244 So. 3d 342

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 9, 2018
• Docket: 5D16-3777
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JEDAK CORPORATION D/B/A RAZZLE'S,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-3777

SEABREEZE OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LLC AND NEIL HUNTER,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Dennis Craig, Judge.

Cynthia B. Beissel, and F. Bradley Hassell, of Hassell-Legal, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Thomas A. Valdez, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, and Michael J. Reilly and Gabriel Dobrin, of Law Offices of James W. Kehoe, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee, Seabreeze Office Associates, LLC.

No Appearance for Other Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this action arising from a written commercial lease agreement, Appellee,

Seabreeze Office Associates, LLC (“Landlord”), obtained summary judgment for damages arising from the breach of contractual provisions requiring that Appellant, Jedak

Corporation d/b/a Razzle’s (“Tenant”), indemnify and provide insurance coverage to

protect Landlord from losses arising from Tenant’s occupancy of the premises. Although

Tenant raises numerous issues on appeal, we need only address one, which we conclude

is dispositive of this dispute. Because Landlord did not incur any damages that were

caused by the breach of these particular lease provisions, the lower court erred in granting

summary judgment in favor of Landlord and in denying summary judgment in favor of

Tenant. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause with directions that summary

judgment be entered in favor of Tenant. See Cas. Indem. Exch. v. Penrod Bros., 632 So.

2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (where landlord’s insurer fully covers loss, landlord

suffers no compensable damages arising from tenant’s breach of contract). 1

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

1 Landlord’s insurer was not a party to this case.