Background
Juan Garcia and his parents sued the City of Miami Beach, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (through its predecessor agency), and private entities over injuries Garcia sustained while diving in South Beach waters. The City settled the plaintiffs’ direct claims in the late 1990s; those claims were dismissed only as to the City. The plaintiffs’ claims against FDEP remained pending after the Florida Supreme Court reversed an earlier summary judgment for FDEP.
The Supreme Court had indicated that FDEP could seek indemnity from the City under their management agreement if FDEP were held liable. FDEP later filed a third-party indemnity complaint against the City. Before trial resolved the plaintiffs’ negligence claims against FDEP, the trial court granted final summary judgment to the City, reasoning that FDEP would be liable, if at all, for its own negligence and that sovereign immunity barred indemnification. It also relied on delay-based defenses.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District reversed. Although FDEP was permitted to file its indemnity claim before the underlying liability action concluded, final summary judgment on indemnity was premature because FDEP’s liability to the plaintiffs had not yet been adjudicated or paid.
The trial court improperly assumed, from unverified pleadings, that any liability against FDEP would rest on FDEP’s own negligence. That question was for the trier of fact in the underlying action. Unverified pleadings are not record evidence supporting summary judgment, so the asserted factual predicate for applying section 768.28 could not support judgment for the City.
Key Takeaways
- A party may assert indemnity before underlying liability is resolved, but judgment on indemnity generally must await that resolution.
- A court cannot decide a potential indemnitee’s liability theory by relying on unverified allegations rather than summary-judgment evidence.
- Sovereign-immunity arguments dependent on unresolved facts cannot support summary judgment without an evidentiary record.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between pleading an indemnity claim and obtaining an indemnity judgment. Florida litigants may use third-party practice to preserve and streamline indemnity claims, but courts ordinarily must resolve the underlying liability first.
The ruling also underscores that summary judgment must rest on admissible record materials, not assumptions drawn from pleadings about how a factfinder may ultimately allocate fault.