FRED TEITELBAUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SANTE FE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed a contractual indemnity judgment because New York law, which governs the indemnity contract, requires unequivocal language to indemnify a party against its own negligence, which the contract lacked.
A contract of indemnity does not indemnify a party against its own negligence unless the contract expresses such intention in unequivocal terms.
[1] Under New York law, a contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify a party against its own negligence unless such intention is expressed in unequivocal terms.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“contracts will not be construed to indemnify a person against his own negligence unless such intention is expressed in unequivocal terms”
New York law standard for indemnity contracts, citing Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co.
Fred Teitelbaum Construction Company entered into an indemnity contract made in New York with Sante Fe Development Corporation. The trial court entere…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contractual Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment under review which was entered on a theory of contractual indemnity is reversed based on the following, briefly stated, legal analysis.
First, New York law governs in determining whether the contract of indemnity herein provides a legal basis for the indemnity judgment entered below. The contract of indemnity was made in New York, and under controlling Florida law the legal obligations of an indemnity contract are governed by the law of the place where the contract was made. Pfaudler Co. v. Sylvachem Corp., 400 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 400 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Second, New York law is well-settled that “contracts will not be construed to indemnify a person against his own negligence unless such intention is expressed in unequivocal terms.” Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 271 N.Y. 36, 2 N.E. 2d 35, 37 (1936). The subject contract of indemnity, upon which the final judgment rests, does not express in unequivocal terms that the third-party defendant subcontractor [Fred Teitelbaum Construction Company of Florida, Inc.] agrees to indemnify the third-party plaintiff owner [Sante Fe Development Corporation] for tort claims based on the latter’s own negligence. It therefore follows that, under governing New York law, the contract of indemnity herein can provide no legal basis for the indemnity judgment entered below.
The final summary judgment under review is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Pfaudler Co. v. Sylvachem Corp., 400 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)