FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. ELMORE, GLEN DAMON, WILLIAM FREEMAN, WILLIAM MURRAY, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE SURVIVING TRUSTEES OF SUNSHINE CONTRACTORS, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, 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.
Florida Power & Light Company appealed a judgment denying its claim for indemnity from Sunshine Contractors under an indemnity clause in a purchase order. The court affirmed, holding that the indemnity agreement did not protect FP&L against losses resulting from its own negligence because the contract lacked clear and unequivocal language expressing such intent.
The indemnity contract did not indemnify FP&L against losses resulting from its own negligence. In the absence of clear and unequivocal terms, an indemnity contract must be construed to indemnify only against the negligence of the indemnitor, not the indemnitee. The contract contained no language indicating by clear and unequivocal terms an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee's own negligence.
“in the absence of clear and unequivocal terms [an indemnity contract] must be construed to be a contract to indemnify only against the negligence of the indemnitor, and not that of the indemnitee”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that indemnity contracts are strictly construed and do not indemnify the indemnitee against its own negligence without explicit language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Power & Light Company entered into a purchase order with Sunshine Contractors that included an indemnity clause. Contractors agreed to hold FP…
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 Strict Construction Of Indemnity Agreements cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from a judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered in an action in the circuit court in Dade County on trial of the cause before the court without a jury. The determinative question here, as in the trial court, is whether the agreement sued upon indemnified the indemnitee against losses resulting from its own negligence.
The circumstances which resulted in the loss for which the plaintiff sought indemnity are revealed in the reports of certain of the cases which arose between parties to the transaction. See Florida Power & Light Company v. Ahearn, Fla. 1960, 118 So.2d 21; Ahearn v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 457.
The indemnity contract as contained in the purchase order was as follows:
“Contractor, [Sunshine Contractors, Incorporated] upon acceptance of this purchase order, agrees to hold the Company free and unharmed against any liabilities whatsoever resulting in connection with performance of the described work by Contractor or its employees.”
The trial court was eminently correct in holding that the contract did not indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting from its own negligence, and in so holding followed the law as established by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Fla.1952, 55 So.2d 575, on rehearing at p. 579, and as held by this court in Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 298. And see Smith v. Ryan, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 139, 141.
In the Jackson case the Supreme Court held that “in the absence of clear and unequivocal terms [an indemnity contract] must be construed to be a contract to indemnify only against the negligence of the indemnitor, and not that of the indemnitee,” citing 27 Am.Jur., Indemnity, § 15 and the Annotation in 175 A.L.R., Division IV, Subdivision B (§ 17, p. 29) where the rule is so stated, with the addition that intent to indemnify the indemnitee against his own negligence will not be inferred from general language, and that such contracts are to be strictly construed. The contract in the instant case contains no reference to indemnifying against negligence of the indemni-tee, or other language indicating by clear and unequivocal terms the intent to do so.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Univ. Plaza Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1973)…ndemnity for consequences resulting from the indemni-tee’s own negligence. Nat. Harrison Associates v. Florida Power and Light Co., 162 So. 2d 298 (Fla.App.3d 1964), cert. denied 166 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1964); Florida Power [*511] & Light Co. v. Elmore, 189 So. 2d 522 (Fla.App.3d 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1967); and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Atlantic Coastline R.R. Co., 196 So. 2d 456 (Fla.App.2d 1967), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1967). The import of these opinions is succinctly stated in Gulf where…
-
Charles POE Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1979)…79). With respect to the possibility of contractual indemnity, we take note that contracts of indemnification which attempt to indemnify a party against its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor in Florida. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Elmore, 189 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 162 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Such contracts will be enforced only if they express an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee’s own wrongful acts in clear and un…
-
Gulf OIL Corp. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. & the Atl. Land & Improvement Co., 196 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…., 156 Ohio St. 503, 103 N.E. 2d 751; 27 Am. Jur., Indemnity, § 15; cases collected in Division IV, Subdivision B, of the annotation beginning at page 8 of 175 A.L.R. * * * ” [Emphasis added.] In the recent case of Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Elmore, 189 So. 2d 522 (D.C.A.Fla.1966), the court stated: “The indemnity contract as contained in the purchase order was as follows: “ ‘Contractor, [Sunshine Contractors, Incorporated] upon acceptance of this purchase order, agrees to hold the Company free and unharmed…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, 55 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1951)
- NAT Harrison Assocs., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 162 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Ahearn v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 129 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Smith v. Ryan, 142 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Ahearn, 118 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1960)