Filed: Apr. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JEDAK CORPORATION D/B/A RAZZLE'S, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-3777 SEABREEZE OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LLC AND NEIL HUNTER, Appellees. _/ Opinion filed April 13, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Dennis Craig, Judge. Cynthia B. Beissel, and F. Bradley Hassell, of Hassell-Legal, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Thomas A.
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JEDAK CORPORATION D/B/A RAZZLE'S, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-3777 SEABREEZE OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LLC AND NEIL HUNTER, Appellees. _/ Opinion filed April 13, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Dennis Craig, Judge. Cynthia B. Beissel, and F. Bradley Hassell, of Hassell-Legal, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Thomas A. ..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JEDAK CORPORATION D/B/A RAZZLE'S,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D16-3777
SEABREEZE OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LLC
AND NEIL HUNTER,
Appellees.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 13, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
Dennis Craig, Judge.
Cynthia B. Beissel, and F. Bradley Hassell,
of Hassell-Legal, P.A., Daytona Beach, for
Appellant.
Thomas A. Valdez, of Quintairos, Prieto,
Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, and Michael
J. Reilly and Gabriel Dobrin, of Law Offices
of James W. Kehoe, Fort Lauderdale, for
Appellee, Seabreeze Office Associates,
LLC.
No Appearance for Other Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this action arising from a written commercial lease agreement, Appellee,
Seabreeze Office Associates, LLC (“Landlord”), obtained summary judgment for
damages arising from the breach of contractual provisions requiring that Appellant, Jedak
Corporation d/b/a Razzle’s (“Tenant”), indemnify and provide insurance coverage to
protect Landlord from losses arising from Tenant’s occupancy of the premises. Although
Tenant raises numerous issues on appeal, we need only address one, which we conclude
is dispositive of this dispute. Because Landlord did not incur any damages that were
caused by the breach of these particular lease provisions, the lower court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of Landlord and in denying summary judgment in favor of
Tenant. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause with directions that summary
judgment be entered in favor of Tenant. See Cas. Indem. Exch. v. Penrod Bros.,
632 So.
2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (where landlord’s insurer fully covers loss, landlord
suffers no compensable damages arising from tenant’s breach of contract). 1
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
1 Landlord’s insurer was not a party to this case.
2