Ryan v. Gladwell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ryan v. Gladwell

265 So. 2d 63, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6366

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1972

DocketNo. 72-9

StatusPublished

This text of 265 So. 2d 63 (Ryan v. Gladwell) 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

Ryan v. Gladwell, 265 So. 2d 63, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6366 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The point presented on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in ruling against the appellants when they moved to amend their answer by asserting a defense “in the nature of res judicata.” During the trial, appellants’ counsel sought to introduce into evidence a “hold harmless agreement” whereby an insurance company for a jointly liable defendant paid the full extent of its coverage in return for plaintiffs’ agreement to hold it harmless from all monetary exposure incurred as a result of the litigation. The court properly held that the execution of this agreement did not constitute a splitting of the cause of action. See Fla.Stat. § 768.041, F.S.A.; Jacksonville Terminal Company v. Misak, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 295; Clemons v. Clark, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 242.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The point presented on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in ruling against the appellants when they moved to amend their answer by asserting a defense “in the nature of res judicata.” During the trial, appellants’ counsel sought to introduce into evidence a “hold harmless agreement” whereby an insurance company for a jointly liable defendant paid the full extent of its coverage in return for plaintiffs’ agreement to hold it harmless from all monetary exposure incurred as a result of the litigation. The court properly held that the execution of this agreement did not constitute a splitting of the cause of action. See Fla.Stat. § 768.041, F.S.A.; Jacksonville Terminal Company v. Misak, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 295; Clemons v. Clark, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 242.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 So. 2d 63, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-gladwell-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack