SEFC BUILDING CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, BLOCK FIVE VENTURES, INC., A FLORIDA JOINT VENTURE AND HINES INTERESTS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MCCLOSKEY WINDOW CLEANING, INC., 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.
SEFC Building Corporation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its indemnification claim against McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc. under an indemnification agreement for window cleaning services. The court affirmed, holding that the indemnification clause did not clearly and unequivocally express an intent to indemnify the building owner for its own negligence, and therefore Block Five could not recover defense costs or attorney fees.
The indemnification clause did not express a clear and unequivocal intent to indemnify Block Five for its own negligence, and therefore Block Five is not entitled to indemnification or recovery of attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the employee's claims. The trial court's summary judgment was properly entered as a matter of law.
[1] Indemnification agreements are strictly construed and will only be enforced if they clearly and unequivocally express an intent to indemnify a party for its own wrongful…
[2] A party seeking indemnification for its own negligence must demonstrate that the indemnification clause in the contract clearly and unequivocally expresses such intent.
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“Contracts which attempt to indemnify a party for its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor and will be enforced only if they express such intent in clear, unequivocal terms.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for enforcement of indemnification clauses covering a party's own negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCloskey Window Cleaning and SEFC Building Corporation (Block Five) entered into a contract for window cleaning services at the Southeast Financial C…
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 Third Party Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment finding no liability from appellee McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc. (“MeClos- key”) to appellant SEFC Building Corporation, et al., d/b/a Block Five Ventures (“Block Five”) pursuant to an indemnification agreement. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
MeCloskey and Block Five entered into an agreement for MeCloskey to perform window cleaning services at the Southeast Financial Center. The agreement contained an indemnification clause which provided that:
Section 8. Hold Harmless a. Contractor [MeCloskey] agrees to indemnify the Owner [Block Five] against, and hold the Owner harmless from and in respect of any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including attorney fees at all levels occurring, arising out of or relating to any injury to or death of any person or damage to or deterioration of loss of any property in connection with:
i. Contractor’s work or other activity on or about the site;
ii. Any default of Contractor on any of its obligations under this Contract; and iii. Any act or omission of Contractor, or its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors.
One of McCloskey’s employees allegedly fell and was injured while washing windows at the Southeast Financial Center. The employee sued Block Five and alleged that his injuries were sustained as a result of Block Five’s negligence.
After being sued, Block Five requested that MeCloskey assume the defense on its behalf pursuant to section 8. When McClos-key refused, Block Five filed a third party claim against MeCloskey for indemnification.
MeCloskey answered the third party complaint and moved for summary judgment prior to the trial of the main action. In granting the motion for summary judgment, we find that the trial court correctly concluded as a matter of law, that Block Five was not entitled to indemnification because section 8 does not express such an intent in clear and unequivocal terms. Contracts which attempt to indemnify a party for its own -wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor and will be enforced only if they express such intent in clear, unequivocal terms. Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1979); Skidmore, Ownings and Merrill v. The Volpe Constr. Co., 511 So. 2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1988); Nat Harrison Assoc., Inc. v. Florida Power and Light Co., 162 So. 2d 298 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied 166 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1964).
Block Five concedes on appeal that section 8 does not express a clear and unequivocal intent for MeCloskey to indemnify Block Five for Block Five’s negligence. Block Five argues, however, that under section 8, it may still recoup its attorneys fees and costs from MeCloskey for defending the main action if it is established at trial that Block Five was not negligent. We disagree. Because Block Five is not entitled to indemnification from MeCloskey, it is also not entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against the employee’s claims in the main action. Skidmore, Ownings and Merrill v. Volpe Constr. Co., 511 So. 2d at 645. We therefore affirm the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment on this issue.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
REA v. Barton Protective Servs., Inc., 660 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…se to common law indemnification or contractual indemnification has not been presented. I also do not believe that the granting of summary judgment was premature under these circumstances. In SEFC Building Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the court held that the trial court properly granted a summary judgment against an indemnification claim prior to trial of the main claim. See also P.P. Partners Ltd. v. J.J. Gumberg Co., 611 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In ad…1 / 2
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. CBM Indus. OF Minn., Inc., 776 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…se 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 suggested at oral argument that the two opinions conflict. We find that the two opinions are wholly consistent with each other and that the instant case is controlled by Westinghouse. In Westinghouse, the Co…1 / 2
-
Repor Bros., Inc. v. Moore, 83 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ity, § 15). “Contracts which attempt to indemnify a party for its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor and will be enforced only if they express such intent in clear, unequivocal terms.” S.E.F.C. Bldg. Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1116, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1979); Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Volpe Constr. Co., 511 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Nat Harrison Assocs., Inc. v.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Charles POE Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1979)
- NAT Harrison Assocs., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 162 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Fiore v. Shalley, 166 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1964)
- Skidmore v. The Volpe Constr. Co., Inc., 511 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)