Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Cather Industries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Cather Industries, Inc.

487 So. 2d 1179, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1002, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7569

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2262

StatusPublished

This text of 487 So. 2d 1179 (Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Cather Industries, Inc.) 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

Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Cather Industries, Inc., 487 So. 2d 1179, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1002, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7569 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following the opinion and decision of this court on a prior appeal in this matter, found in Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Gelfand Roofing, Inc., 450 So.2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the matter recurred in the trial court for a trial on the case in chief between the original plaintiffs and the developer, Vernon Zuckerman, and the contractor, Robert L. Turchin, Inc. The jury rendered a verdict finding that Turchin’s negligence damaged the plaintiff in the amount of $1,766,340.00 and finding no liability on the developer. Final judgment thereon was duly entered. Thereafter, the appel-lees, Cather Industries, Inc., Sam Bloom Plumbers, Inc., Trop-X, Corporation, and Gelfand Roofing, Inc., (who had been named as third-party defendants) moved for summary judgment on the defendant Turchin’s third-party claim against them for contribution and indemnity. They contended that Turchin was not entitled to [1180]*1180indemnity, having been found actively negligent, and could not recover contribution because, although a joint tortfeasor under the allegations of the original complaint, he was guilty of a violation of a fiduciary duty. Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1983).¹ This appeal ensued.

We affirm the summary judgment as to the indemnity count. Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979); Miami Elevator Company v. La Concha Motor Inn, 462 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc., 385 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We reverse the summary judgment as it relates to the contribution count. The violation of a fiduciary duty, if any, would have been to the developer and not to the original plaintiffs and therefore we do not find the provisions of Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1983) applicable and we return the matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining the contribution issues.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following the opinion and decision of this court on a prior appeal in this matter, found in Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Gelfand Roofing, Inc., 450 So.2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the matter recurred in the trial court for a trial on the case in chief between the original plaintiffs and the developer, Vernon Zuckerman, and the contractor, Robert L. Turchin, Inc. The jury rendered a verdict finding that Turchin’s negligence damaged the plaintiff in the amount of $1,766,340.00 and finding no liability on the developer. Final judgment thereon was duly entered. Thereafter, the appel-lees, Cather Industries, Inc., Sam Bloom Plumbers, Inc., Trop-X, Corporation, and Gelfand Roofing, Inc., (who had been named as third-party defendants) moved for summary judgment on the defendant Turchin’s third-party claim against them for contribution and indemnity. They contended that Turchin was not entitled to [1180]*1180indemnity, having been found actively negligent, and could not recover contribution because, although a joint tortfeasor under the allegations of the original complaint, he was guilty of a violation of a fiduciary duty. Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1983).¹ This appeal ensued.

We affirm the summary judgment as to the indemnity count. Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979); Miami Elevator Company v. La Concha Motor Inn, 462 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc., 385 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We reverse the summary judgment as it relates to the contribution count. The violation of a fiduciary duty, if any, would have been to the developer and not to the original plaintiffs and therefore we do not find the provisions of Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1983) applicable and we return the matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining the contribution issues.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 So. 2d 1179, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1002, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-l-turchin-inc-v-cather-industries-inc-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack