Air Agency, Inc. v. British Airways
Air Agency, Inc. v. British Airways
Opinion of the Court
Appellant Air Agency, Inc., brought a third party complaint for indemnity against appellee British Airways.
On this appeal, Air Agency, Inc., urges error on the ground that the evidence showed a claim either for contract indemnity or for indemnity on the basis that British Airways was the active tort-feasor and that, at best, Air Agency, Inc., was a passive tort-feasor. We affirm upon a holding that the evidence did not show a contract providing for indemnity of an active tort-feasor. Cf. University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1973), and Maulé Industries, Inc. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corporation, 323 So.2d 631 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
It is clear from the evidence that Air Agency, Inc., as the landlord, was an active tort-feasor in its failure to maintain the area of common usage. See the principles of law in Florida Power Corporation v. Taylor, 332 So.2d 687 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).
Affirmed.
. All pleadings refer to the third party defendant as British Airways. The briefs set forth that British Airways should actually be referred to as British Overseas Airways Corporation.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.