Alonzo Cothron, Inc. v. Upper Keys Marine Const., Inc., No. 84-638

CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBefore SCHWARTZ; PER CURIAM
Citation10 Fla. L. Weekly 2715,480 So.2d 136
Docket NumberNo. 84-638
Decision Date10 December 1985
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 2715 ALONZO COTHRON, INC., Appellant, v. UPPER KEYS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.

Page 136

480 So.2d 136
10 Fla. L. Weekly 2715
ALONZO COTHRON, INC., Appellant,
v.
UPPER KEYS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.
No. 84-638.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
Dec. 10, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1986.

Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson & Kniskern and Roy D. Wasson, Miami, for appellant.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and George W. Chesrow, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellee, Upper Keys Marine Construction, Inc. [Upper Keys]. We find error in the trial court's application of section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1977), as the ground for denying appellant Alonzo Cothron, Inc. [Cothron] indemnification from Upper Keys for attorney's fees and costs advanced by Cothron in a wrongful death action against Upper Keys, Cothron, and others.

Section 725.06 does not govern the circumstances of the case under consideration. Section 725.06 would apply if Cothron

Page 137

sought indemnification from Upper Keys for Cothron's negligence. In the case before us, however, Upper Keys entered into a contractual agreement to indemnify Cothron for negligence by Upper Keys in the performance of its construction contract with Cothron. * We therefore hold that the contractual provision controls and that, as a matter of law, Cothron, not Upper Keys, is entitled to summary judgment.

Summary judgment in favor of Upper Keys is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of Cothron.

---------------

* The contract provided:

The Subcontractor shall indemnify and save harmless the General Contractor, the Owner and the Architect/Engineer from and against all losses and claims of every nature and description brought or recovered against him by reason of any act or omission of the said Subcontractor, his agents or employees, in the execution of the work or in the guarding of the work.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Pilot Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Babe's Plumbing, Inc., No. 2D11–6009.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 24, 2013
    ...This statute is inapplicable to the facts of this case as demonstrated in Alonzo Cothron, Inc. v. Upper Keys Marine Construction, Inc., 480 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In that case, the Third District held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of section 725......
  • Pilot Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Babe's Plumbing, Inc., Case No. 2D11-6009
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 1, 2013
    ...This statute is inapplicable to the facts of this case as demonstrated in Alonzo Cothron, Inc. v. Upper Keys Marine Construction, Inc., 480 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In that case, the Third District held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of section 72......
2 cases
  • Pilot Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Babe's Plumbing, Inc., No. 2D11–6009.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 24, 2013
    ...This statute is inapplicable to the facts of this case as demonstrated in Alonzo Cothron, Inc. v. Upper Keys Marine Construction, Inc., 480 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In that case, the Third District held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of section 725......
  • Pilot Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Babe's Plumbing, Inc., Case No. 2D11-6009
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 1, 2013
    ...This statute is inapplicable to the facts of this case as demonstrated in Alonzo Cothron, Inc. v. Upper Keys Marine Construction, Inc., 480 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In that case, the Third District held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of section 72......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT