Jedak Corp. v. Seabreeze Office Assocs., LLC

Full title: JEDAK CORPORATION D/B/A RAZZLE'S, Appellant, v. SEABREEZE OFFICE…

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Date published: Apr 13, 2018

244 So. 3d 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 5D16–3777

04-13-2018

JEDAK CORPORATION d/b/a Razzle's, Appellant, v. SEABREEZE OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LLC and Neil Hunter, Appellees.

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.

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.

1 Landlord's insurer was not a party to this case.
--------

COHEN, C.J., PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.