Couch Construction Co. ex rel. Kimmins Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation
Docket: No. 88-329
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 28, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court
Couch Construction Company (Couch) appeals a summary judgment that ruled its claims against the Department of Transportation (DOT) were barred by res judicata. The contract between Couch and DOT required DOT to relocate utilities for a highway widening project, which DOT failed to do. Couch initially sued DOT for breach of contract, leading to a trial court decision that recognized DOT's breach but modified the contract instead of terminating it, allowing Couch to receive damages for delays. Subsequently, Couch initiated a second suit on behalf of its subcontractor, Kimmins, for similar damages from DOT’s failure to relocate utilities. DOT raised res judicata as a defense, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court erroneously concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning res judicata. The court's ruling was flawed because not all four essential elements of res judicata were satisfied: identity of parties, capacity, causes of action, and the things sued for. The document cites case law establishing that differences in the capacity of parties can defeat res judicata, referencing various cases where subsequent actions were allowed despite prior unsuccessful suits. The summary judgment was thus reversed, indicating that Couch's claims could proceed. No identity exists between the claims made by Couch in the first suit and those made on behalf of Kimmins in the second suit. Couch sought damages solely for its own losses, while the second suit pursued damages for Kimmins under contractual obligations. The application of res judicata is deemed inequitable as Kimmins had not completed its work on the highway expansion project at the time of the first suit, rendering its damages incomplete and not fully calculable. Legal precedents establish that when intervening conditions create new claims and defenses, res judicata does not apply. The argument that Couch should have included Kimmins' claims in the first lawsuit is rejected, as the Department of Transportation (DOT) recognized that Kimmins' claims were not ready for adjudication and were being recalculated at DOT's request. Consequently, the summary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, with ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concurring.