CHURCH & TOWER OF FLORIDA, INC.
v.
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Church & Tower appeals a summary judgment requiring it to indemnify BellSouth for injuries arising from pole replacement work. The court affirmed, holding that the unambiguous indemnity clause in their contract required Church & Tower to indemnify BellSouth for all liabilities arising from the contracted work, including BellSouth's alleged negligence.
The indemnity clause is unambiguous and valid, requiring Church & Tower to indemnify BellSouth for all liabilities arising from or connected with the work performed by Church & Tower under the contract. Because the allegations of injury arose out of the contracted work, the indemnity provision requires Church & Tower to indemnify BellSouth.
[1] An indemnity provision in a contract is enforceable if its terms are unambiguous and clearly require one party to indemnify the other for liabilities arising from the per…
[2] A contractual indemnity clause requiring a contractor to indemnify an indemnitee for liabilities arising from acts or omissions, whether active or passive, applies even i…
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“the Contractor [Church & Tower] further specifically agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees from all Liabilities, by reason of any injury, death, or damage to any person or property whatsoever, caused by, arising from, incident to, or connected with the performance or nonperformance of the work contemplated by this Contract which is, or is alleged to be, caused in part (whether joint, concurrent, or contributing) or in whole by any act, omission, default, or negligence (whether active or passive) of the Indemnitees.”
This is the indemnity clause at issue, showing that Church & Tower agreed to indemnify BellSouth even for BellSouth'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 intelligenceIn 1995, Church & Tower contracted with BellSouth to replace and relocate utility poles in North Dade County, with a broad indemnity provision. In 200…
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
SUAREZ, J.
Church & Tower of Florida, Inc. (“Church & Tower”), appeals an order granting summary judgment on indemnity in favor of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (“BellSouth”). We affirm.
Bellsouth’s claim for indemnity arises out of a contract between the two parties which contains an indemnity provision. In 1995, Church & Tower entered into the contract in question with BellSouth in which Church & Tower agreed to replace and relocate BellSouth utility poles in North Dade County. The contract contains the following indemnity provision:
[T]he Contractor [Church & Tower] further specifically agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees from all Liabilities, by reason of any injury, death, or damage to any person or property whatsoever, caused by, arising from, incident to, or connected with the performance or nonperformance of the work contemplated by this Contract which is, or is alleged to be, caused in part (whether joint, concurrent, or contributing) or in whole by any act, omission, default, or negligence (whether active or passive) of the Indemnitees.
In 2001, Church & Tower replaced a pole at Bellsouth’s direction. A construction worker nailing plywood to an adjacent building was severely injured when his nail gun came in contact with electrical wires installed on the pole by FPL. The worker’s guardian sued FPL and BellSouth alleging negligence in the placement of the pole and the attachment of the electrical lines too close to the building. BellSouth cross-claimed against Church & Tower for contractual indemnity. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bell-south on the cross-claim finding that the indemnity provision required Church & Tower to indemnify BellSouth for the claim. Church & Tower appeals.
We review the construction of the indemnity clause of the contract de novo. See Team Land Dev., Inc. v. Anzac Contractors, Inc., 811 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We find that the terms of the indemnity clause are unambiguous and that the clear provisions of the contract require Church & Tower to indemnify BellSouth for any alleged acts of negligence arising out of work performed by Church & Tower under the contract, see Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla.2005) (term “arising out of’ used in indemnification clause unambiguous); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 699 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (court must give effect to plain meaning of contract), and hold that the indemnification clause is valid and enforceable. See Univ. Plaza Shopping Ctr. v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1973); Metro. Dade County v. CBM Indus., 776 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Specifically, the clause requires Church & Tower (the Contractor) to indemnify BellSouth (the Indemnitee) for all liabilities alleged to have been caused by BellSouth arising from or connected with the work performed by Church & Tower pursuant to the contract. The complaint alleges that Bellsouth’s negligence in placing the pole too close to the building was a cause of the injuries sustained. As the allegations arise out of the work contracted for by Church & Tower, the provision requires Church & Tower to indemnify BellSouth.
The summary judgment on indemnity in favor of BellSouth is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blok Builders, LLC v. Katryniok, 245 So. 3d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…uilding, which type of contract is covered by the statute. Mastec suggests that section 725.06 does not apply to utility contracts, which are quasi-governmental. In particular, it cites to Church & Tower of Fla., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. , 936 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), which involved a contract with a similar indemnity provision as in this case. The contract in question provided for the installation of utility poles, and the court enforced the indemnity provision but never addressed section 725…
-
ATC Logistics Corp. v. Se. Toyota Distribs., LLC, 188 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ge ... whether caused by negligence of Engineer, or otherwise, .. / and Owner shall indemnify and hold Enginéer harmless from any such damages or liability.” Id. at 1318. And, in Church & Tower of Florida, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., 936 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the Third District Court of Appeal held an indemnity provision that required indemnity “caused in part (whether joint, concurrent, or contributing) or in whole by any act, omission, default, or negligence (whether active or passi…
-
Blok Builders, LLC v. Katryniok (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…uilding, which type of contract is covered by the statute. Mastec suggests that section 725.06 does not apply to utility contracts, which are quasi-governmental. In particular, it cites to Church & Tower of Fla., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 936 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), which involved a contract with a similar indemnity provision as in this case. The contract in question provided for the installation of utility poles, and the court enforced the indemnity provision but never addressed section 72…
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
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005)
- Univ. Plaza Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1973)
- Team Land Dev., Inc. v. Anzac Contractors, Inc., 811 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. CBM Indus. OF Minn., Inc., 776 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 699 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)