NRI LIMITED f/k/a JETSAVE LIMITED, a corporation of Great Britain, f/u/b/o INDEPENDENT INSURANCE COMPANY vs. HENRY FRETZ and JOAN FRETZ and WENDY SULLIVAN REAL ESTATE, P.A., a Florida Corporation
(Case No. 44-2001-CA-116-K; Judge David Audlin; Date: May 2007)

Defendant’s Attorneys: MICHAEL P. RUDD and THERESA A. STRUB


INDEMNIFICATION/EQUITABLE SUBROGATION:  This Two Count lawsuit arose from an accident that occurred in May of 1996 at the property of Henry and Joan Fretz.  Simon North, a British citizen and invitee on their premises, was renting the Fretz’s home while on vacation in the Florida Keys.  During his stay, he allegedly tripped and fell off the balcony, sustaining injuries to his left wrist, left ankle and left shoulder.  Mr. North then sued the Plaintiff in this case in England, where he resided, pursuant to a British statute entitling him to do so.  He obtained a judgment against the Plaintiff and they subsequently filed suit against Defendants, alleging they were entitled to indemnification and equitable subrogation for the payment rendered to Mr. North for his alleged injuries.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were negligent in maintaining the property at issue, which ultimately resulted in Mr. North’s alleged injuries, and that their negligence entitled them to indemnification and equitable subrogation under Florida law.

Two separate trials were held in this cause.  First, a jury trial addressed the Plaintiff’s indemnification claim.  The Plaintiff argued that due to the Defendants’ negligence in maintaining the property, as well as the special relationship the Defendants had with Mr. North, they were entitled to a jury verdict.  

VERDICT:  With regard to the jury trial on the indemnification claim, the jury unanimously found that there was no special relationship between the Defendants and Mr. North.  Therefore, the Plaintiff was precluded from recovery under their indemnification claim.

The second trial was a bench trial on the equitable subrogation claim.  The Plaintiff argued that due to the Plaintiff’s negligence in maintaining the property at issue, they were entitled to equitable subrogation.  In order to prove equitable subrogation, the Plaintiff in this case had to “step into the shoes” of Mr. North and had the burden of proving that the Defendants were negligent in maintaining the property.  

Demand: Approximately $1.1 million, inclusive of costs and fees.
Offer:  $25,000.00

VERDICT:  Judge Audlin, after reviewing all parties’ Trial Briefs, found that the Defendants were not negligent in maintaining the property at issue and, therefore, the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover nothing.