Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
BRICKELL BISCAYNE v. Morse/Diesel, Inc.
Citations: 683 So. 2d 168; 1996 WL 637300Docket: 95-1996
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 5, 1996; Florida; State Appellate Court
Brickell Biscayne Corporation appeals a dismissal of claims against Arquitectonica International Corporation and Morse/Diesel, Inc. regarding the Palace Condominium project. The appellate court affirms in part and reverses in part. The case originated from a 1986 lawsuit filed by the Palace Condominium Association against Brickell Biscayne, Morse/Diesel, and Arquitectonica, alleging breach of statutory and common law warranties, building code violations, and negligence, which resulted in a $3 million settlement for Brickell Biscayne and an assignment of the association's claims. The court distinguishes this case from a prior ruling (WPL Associates), affirming that Brickell can pursue claims for common law indemnity, as the appellees were alleged to bear full responsibility for the building's defects, and had contractual relationships with the condominium association. The assignment of claims from the association to Brickell supports the assertion of these claims. Additionally, Brickell's claim for equitable subrogation regarding the settlement payment is also deemed maintainable as the appellees were co-defendants responsible for the issues leading to the settlement. Thus, the court finds that the claims against Arquitectonica and Morse/Diesel were improperly dismissed and should proceed. The court finds no grounds to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against the appellees for breaching implied terms of their contracts with Brickell Biscayne, which require them to perform services in a professional and workmanlike manner. The appellees' statute of limitations defense lacks sufficient basis for dismissal, as it does not appear on the face of the complaints. Consequently, these claims will proceed to trial upon remand. Conversely, the court agrees that the claims for breach of contractual indemnity against Morse/Diesel and the direct negligence claims against both appellees lack merit. The court affirms the dismissal of these particular claims while reversing the dismissal of the breach of contract claims, resulting in a partial affirmation, partial reversal, and remand for further proceedings.