WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS WESTINGHOUSE ELEVATOR COMPANY AND SCHINDLER CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Westinghouse and Schindler appealed a summary judgment requiring them to defend Metropolitan Dade County in escalator-related lawsuits under an indemnity provision in their maintenance and installation contract. The court affirmed, holding that the indemnity clause imposed a duty to defend the County in all actions alleging negligent maintenance or installation of Metrorail escalators.
The court held that the indemnity provision included a duty to defend the County. When a complaint contains both covered claims (negligent maintenance/installation) and potentially uncovered claims, the duty to defend extends to the entire lawsuit. The contractors have a current and existing duty to defend the County in all actions where there is an allegation of negligent maintenance and/or installation for the term of the contract.
[1] An indemnity provision requiring a party to defend against claims arising out of negligent performance of an agreement extends to the entire lawsuit when the complaint co…
[2] A successor in interest to a contract is bound by the terms of that contract from the point of succession.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when a complaint contains a covered claim, and a claim which is not covered by the indemnity agreement, then the duty to defend extends to the entire lawsuit”
Establishes the standard for determining the scope of the duty to defend under indemnity provisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWestinghouse entered into contracts with Metropolitan Dade County for installation and maintenance of escalators on the Metrorail line from December 7…
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 Negligent Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants seek review of an adverse final summary judgment which reads as follows:
“THIS CAUSE coming on before the Court on the cross motions of Plaintiff, Metropolitan Dade County and Defendants, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Schindler Elevator Corporation for final summary judgment, and this Court, having reviewed the pleadings and the attachments thereto, and having heard argument of counsel, makes the following findings: 1. It has been admitted by the parties, Plaintiff, Dade County and Defendants, Westinghouse and Schindler, that Defendant Westinghouse entered into a contract for the installation of escalators and a contract for maintenance of escalators on the County’s Metrorail line. It is further admitted that the contract was in full force and effect with respect to Westinghouse from December 7, 1985 through December 31, 1988. On or about January 1, 1989 Defendant Schindler became the successor in interest to the contract, and as such, was bound by the terms of the contract from that point forward. It is admitted between the parties that the contract has been rolled over and is in effect at the current time.
2. The parties agree that the contract contains the following indemnity provision:
Westinghouse shall indemnify and save the County, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims, liability, and causes of action to the extent arising out of the negligent performance of this agreement of Westinghouse, its employees, and agents, and subcontractors of the work covered by these contract documents. Westinghouse shall pay all claims and losses in connection therewith, and shall defend all suits, in the name of the County where applicable, including appellate proceedings, and shall pay all costs, judgments and attorney’s fees which may issue thereon. Westinghouse shall not be liable for any of the County’s defense, costs and attorney’s fees where the County is negligent. (Emphasis in original)
3. Dade County alleged and the Defendants admitted that Dade County has been sued as a result of incidents that have occurred on the Metrorail escalators, and that in each instance where Westinghouse/Schindler is involved, there has been an allegation by the Plaintiff in the lawsuits of negligent maintenance and/or installation.
4. The contracts in question are for the maintenance and installation of the escalators, and as such, the allegations of negligent maintenance and/or installation would be allegations which fall within the terms and provisions of the contract in question. WHEREFORE, it is, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court hereby declare that the indemnity provision set forth above includes within it a duty on the part of the Defendants to defend Dade County. This Court adopts the rule that .. when a complaint contains a covered claim, and a claim which is not covered by the indemnity agreement, then the duty to defend extends to the entire lawsuit.” (citations omitted) Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Company, Inc. [578 So. 2d 296], 16 FLW D623 (Fla.App. 3rd DCA, 1991).
The Defendant shall under the terms of the indemnity contract herein defend Metropolitan Dade County in all instances where there is an allegation of negligent maintenance and/or installation. The Defendants, having admitted that in all cases in which they are currently involved there is an allegation of negligent maintenance and/or installation, have a current and existing duty to defend Dade County in each of those actions. It is further declared that for the term of the contract, unless modified by the parties, there is a duty on the part of the Defendants to defend Dade County in all actions where there is an allegation of negligent maintenance and/or installation.
Based on the foregoing this Court enters final summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Dade County, and against the Defendants Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Schindler Elevator Corporation.
We find no error in the entry of the final summary judgment and affirm. Unisys Corporation v. Frank H. Pow, Inc., 576 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991); Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Company, Inc., 578 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. CBM Indus. OF Minn., Inc., 776 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…way where the incident in question occurred.” Read in its entirety, the Complaint states a cause of action for vicarious liability and negligence against the County. The County relies heavily on Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 592 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) in support of its position that CBM had a duty to defend. CBM on the other hand, argues that this case is more like SEFC Building Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning Inc., 645 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Additionally, it was su…
-
Barton-Malow Co. v. Grunau Co., 835 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ed strictly in favor of the indem-nitor. Sol Walker & Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 362 So. 2d 45, 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In support of its severability argument, Barton-Malow cites to Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 592 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In that case, the court found that the duty to defend was severable from the duty to indemnify even though both duties were included in the same contractual provision. Id. at 1135. However, in that case, the duty to defend was se…
-
Caribbean Fire & Assocs., Inc. v. Coastal Constr. Grp. OF S. Fla., 60 So. 3d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wasa Int’l Ins. Co. v. Hurtado, 749 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 592 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991.)…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Fla. Aviation Fueling Co., Inc., 578 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Unisys Corp. v. Frank H. POE, Inc., 576 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)