Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. NORTHBROOK NATIONAL INSURANCE, individually and as subrogee of J.J. Gumberg Company and as assignee of P.P. Partners, Ltd., Appellees.
American Insurance Company appeals an adverse summary judgment in a dispute involving insurance coverage. In granting summary judgment, the trial court determined that the parties in a document entitled “Modification of Management Agreement” properly reformed their agreement which originally meant to (but did not) provide for indemnification against its own negligence for the property manager J.J. Gumberg Co.
The position now taken by the respective insureds (that they always meant to include indemnification for the property manager for its own negligence) is contrary to the position taken by P.P. Partners, Ltd. in the earlier appeal in this court. See P.P. Partners, Ltd. v. J.J. Gumberg Co., 611 So.2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). P.P. Partners, Ltd. earlier argued that under the management agreement, the property manager was not entitled to such indemnification. Because of the earlier disagreement on this point, we do not think the modification document can properly be viewed as a reformation of the original instrument. See Providence Square Ass'n, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So.2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1987) (parties can reform an agreement due to mutual mistake).
The landowner P.P. Partners and the property manager are certainly free to modify their commercial arrangement between themselves. But in this case they are attempting to modify the original agreement and apply it retroactively so as shift the priority of insurance coverage, after an insured loss has already accrued. We decline to allow a retroactive change in the management agreement (as relates to the interests of American) under the circumstances of the present case.
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the summary judgment must be reversed.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D01-516.
Decided: December 19, 2001
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)