Case ID: so2d_683/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank A. LANNING, Guardian Ad Litem of David M. Banning, an Incompetent; and Ruth Lanning, Appellants, v. PEPSICO, INC., et al. Appellees.
    No. 96-502.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 20, 1996.
    Haggard & Parks, P.A., Coral Gables; Po-dhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A. and Joel S. Perwin, Miami, for appellants.
    Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker and Alan Fiedel, Miami, and David N. Kittredge; Haddad, Josephs, Jack, Gaebe & Markarian and Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellee PepsiCo, Inc.
    Before GERSTEN, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We find that summary judgment was prematurely entered where the scant record to date indicates the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether there was an agency relationship based upon the dealings between the parties. E.g., Moore v. River Ranch, Inc., 642 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enters., Inc., 469 So.2d 955, 956-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Further discovery, however, may conclusively resolve this issue; therefore, our reversal is without prejudice to appellees to renew their motion for summary judgment if a more developed record so warrants the same.

Reversed.