Florida Power & Light Company v. Elmore
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- On Target, Inc. v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
- University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart (Fla. 1973)
- Northwestern National Insurance Company, a Wisconsin Corporation v. Dade County, a Political Subdivision of State of Florida (5th Cir. 1972)
- Goodyear Tire v. J.M. Tull Metals (Ala. 1993)
- Florida Power & Light Company, a Florida Corporation v. Mid-Valley, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Brown & Root, Inc. And Graeme R. Poke (11th Cir. 1985)
- United Gas Pipeline Company v. Gulf Power Company (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
- Gulf Oil Corporation v. Atlantic Coast Line RR Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)
- BVS Acquisition Co., LLC v. Rory A. Brown (11th Cir. 2016)
- ATC Logistics Corp. v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
- Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance v. Ford Motor Co. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2010)
- Eichel v. Goode, Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 1984)
- Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. SPRING LOCK SCAFFOLDIND RENTAL EQUIPMENT CO. (Fla. 1979)
- Leonard L. Farber Company, Inc. v. Jaksch (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
- Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Cross-Appellant v. Tennessee Corporation, Cross-Appellee (5th Cir. 1970)
- Bankhead Welding Service, Inc. v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Gulf Oil Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Hercules Concrete Pile Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1967)
- Thomas Awning & Tent Co. v. Toby's Twelfth Cafeteria, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
*523 Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis and George W. Wright Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker, Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
CARROLL, Judge.
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 indemnitee, or other language indicating by clear and unequivocal terms the intent to do so.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.