Opinion
No. 1D12–5895.
2013-08-22
Kurt C. GERHARDT (“Gerhardt”), Appellant, v. Thomas Y. CROWE, Individually, TYC Management, Inc., Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Thomas Worthington, Individually, and as agent for Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company; James E. Morgan, Jr., Individually, and as agent for Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company; Larry Koresko, Individually, and as agent for Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, Briar Patch of Glenwood, Inc., d/b/a The Business Tax Institute, Samuel B. Eckhardt, and Penn–Mont Benefit Services, Inc., Appellees.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. L.P. Haddock, Judge. Niels P. Murphy and Matthew B. Baggett of Murphy & Anderson, P.A., Jacksonville, and Theodore C. Peters of Edgerton & Weaver, LLP, Hermosa Beach, CA, for Appellant. Richard M. Stoudemire and Travase L. Erickson of Saalfield, Shad, Stokes, Inclan, Stoudemire & Stone, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee Briar Patch of Glenwood, Inc. and Samuel B. Eckhardt; Scott Alan Orth of the Law Offices of Scott Alan Orth, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellee Larry Koresko.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. L.P. Haddock, Judge.
Niels P. Murphy and Matthew B. Baggett of Murphy & Anderson, P.A., Jacksonville, and Theodore C. Peters of Edgerton & Weaver, LLP, Hermosa Beach, CA, for Appellant. Richard M. Stoudemire and Travase L. Erickson of Saalfield, Shad, Stokes, Inclan, Stoudemire & Stone, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee Briar Patch of Glenwood, Inc. and Samuel B. Eckhardt; Scott Alan Orth of the Law Offices of Scott Alan Orth, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellee Larry Koresko.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See T & S Enters. Handicap Accessibility, Inc. v. Wink Indus. Maint. & Repair, Inc., 11 So.3d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“The jury would determine the same issues under section 768.81(3) as it would in a third-party action, and it is unlikely that [a defendant] will be required to pay more than its pro rata share of any common liability.”). See also Wells v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 659 So.2d 249, 256 (Fla.1995) (Anstead, J., specially concurring) (“Since this tortfeasor-defendant now faces a judgment based only on its ‘percentage of fault,’ it, unlike Disney in the [Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 515 So.2d 198 (Fla.1987) ] case, has no basis for seeking contribution from another tortfeasor who might also have contributed to the cause of the claimant's injury.”).