Opinion
Case No. 3D05-1877.
Opinion filed June 14, 2006.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Genden, Judge, Lower Tribunal Case No. 01-2407.
Carlton Fields and Paul L. Nettleton and Nancy C. Ciampa, for appellant.
Restani McAllister and Maria E. Dalmanieras; Dittmar Hauser and Helen Ann Hauser, for appellee.
Before GREEN, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
David Thibaudeau, a Miami-Dade employee, was seriously injured when his office chair collapsed under him. He sued the chair's manufacturer, Steelcase, alleging strict liability, breach of warranty and negligence. He also sued the retailer, Office Interiors, alleging active negligence. Office Interiors was not joined in the original complaint, and only appeared as a party in the second amended complaint. Upon Office Interiors' failure to plead timely, a default was entered against it. The trial court subsequently denied Office Interiors' motion to vacate the default and the cause went to trial against Steelcase. Despite its default Office Interiors was granted leave to file a crossclaim against Steelcase seeking common law and contractual indemnity.
Subsequently, Thibaudeau settled with Office Interiors for $400,000 on the personal injury claim and dismissed his claims of active negligence against Office Interiors. Despite the settlement with Office Interiors, Thibaudeau then fashioned a new third amended complaint against Office Interiors alleging vicarious liability by virtue of strict products liability. The only claim pending at that point was Office Interior's common law indemnity claim against Steelcase.
Office Interiors moved for summary judgment on its common law indemnity claim, asserting that Steelcase as the manufacturer had to reimburse Office Interiors for the $400,000 paid in settlement. Steelcase argued that the settlement actually occurred before the filing of the Third Amended Complaint and therefore had to be attributed to the original active negligence claim in the second amended complaint upon which Office Interiors defaulted.
The trial court denied both parties' summary judgment motions, and Office Interiors' indemnity claim proceeded to trial against Steelcase. The jury found Steelcase liable, and Office Interiors not negligent. The court granted a directed verdict as to the reasonableness of the $400,000 settlement between Office Interiors and the plaintiff, and entered judgment in that amount against Steelcase. We reverse.
Office Interiors' default on Thibaudeau's second amended complaint precluded it from filing a cross-claim against co-defendant Steelcase, even though the default was not reduced to judgment. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(c) (2005) (stating a party may plead or otherwise defend at any time before a default is entered); Rudner v. Cabrera, 455 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (holding even though the default had not matured to a judgment, it nevertheless precluded the filing of a counterclaim); Bischoff v. Dixie Auto Parts Equip. Corp., 346 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (ruling error to allow party to file a cross-claim against co-defendant after a default had been entered against it); Somerville v. Skidmore, 175 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (affirming refusal to set aside default, and striking of defendant's cross-claim against co-defendant).
By virtue of its default, Office Interiors is deemed to have admitted its active negligence, as alleged in the second amended complaint. See Doctor's Hosp. of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 411 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1982) (concluding that an order denying a motion to vacate a default determines liability just as certainly as does an order of default); Becerra v. Equity Imports, Inc., 551 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding a default admits liability as claimed in the pleading by the party seeking affirmative relief against the party in default). Thus Office Interiors' claim for common law indemnification is defeated as a matter of law. See, e.g., Budweiser-Busch Distrib. Co. v. Keystone Lines, 607 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (stating defendant who settled liability claims with plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity from co-defendant for the settlement amount if it is guilty of active negligence); Miami Elevator Co. v. La Concha Motor Inn, 462 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (ruling claim for common law indemnity lies only where party seeking indemnity is not actively negligent); see generally Wiseman v. Stocks, 527 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (citing to comments in 10 C. Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 2d § 2688 at 445, 447-48 (1983) "Once the default is established, defendant has no further standing to contest the factual allegations of the plaintiff's claim for relief.").
Thus, the trial court's post-trial orders denying Steelcase's motion for summary judgment, directed verdict, and judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict must be reversed. We remand with directions that judgment be accordingly entered in favor of Steelcase. As this resolves the underlying cause between Steelcase and Office Interiors, it is unnecessary for us to rule on the remaining issues.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.