Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 67--254
| Decision Date | 26 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--254,67--254 |
| Citation | 206 So.2d 688 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and the Atlantic Land and Improvement Company, Appellants, v. GULF OIL CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
E. Snow Martin, of Martin & Martin, Lakeland, for appellants.
Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellee.
This is the second appearance of this case before us. The action originated in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County where a judgment was entered for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and The Atlantic Land and Improvement Company against the Gulf Oil Corporation.
The lower court held that Gulf Oil Corporation was liable to indemnify the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and The Atlantic Land and Improvement Company. The two appellant corporations had compromised to negligence action brought against them by two employees of the appellee corporation. The two employees received $100,000 in settlement of their damages.
An appeal was taken to the Second District Court of Appeal, Gulf Oil Corporation v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 456, where we reversed the lower court and held that a provision of the licensing agreement, stated below, did not indemnify licensors against their own negligence. The provision of the licensing agreement in question stated in the fourth paragraph:
'That Licensee (plaintiff) shall and will at all times indemnify and save harmless the Licensors, their successors and assigns, from, and will pay and discharge all loss, costs, expense and damage to persons or property resulting from or in any manner connected with the laying, maintenance, operation or presence of said pipe lines or contents thereof on the premises of the Licensors or the removal of said pipe lines therefrom.'
Speaking through Acting Chief Judge Liles (now Chief Judge) in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra, the court said:
'It is evident, then, that Florida decisions hold that an indemnity agreement which indemnifies against the indemnitee's own negligence must state this in 'clear and unequivocal language. It is also clear that in Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 162 So.2d 298 (D.C.A.Fla.1964) and Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Elmore, Fla., 189 So.2d 522, supra, the court ruled that the words 'against any liabilities whatsoever's did not constitute 'clear and unequivocal' language sufficient to indemnify the indemnitee against its own negligence. The language of the Elmore decision indicates that the court adopted the majority rule that there can be no presumption that an indemnitor meant to assume liability for an indemnitee's negligence unless there is explicit reference to the indemnitee's negligence in the contract. We likewise conclude that in order for an indemnity clause or contract to indemnify against an indemnitee's own negligence, the clause or contract must expressly state that such liability is undertaken by the indemnitor.
'Thus it would appear that the majority rule is the better, and that in order for one to indemnify against indemnitee's own negligence general language will not suffice. The term clear and unequivocal goes to the specific indemnification; that is, the language 'any liabilities whatsoever' as used in the Elmore case, supra, as well as 'shall and will at All times indemnify and save harmless * * * and will pay and discharge All loss,' the language used in the instant case, is not the clear and unequivocal language sought, but rather there must be language Specifically designating indemnification against one's own negligence.
'The language of the indemnity clause in the instant case contains no reference to indemnifying against the negligence of the indemnitee which is necessary to exclude it from the majority rule, and thus it was error for the trial judge to enter a declaratory judgment finding that clause did indemnify defendants against their own negligence.'
After our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. and Detective Agency, Inc.
...401 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.1981); Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792 (1932); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So.2d 688, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); cf. Brickell Place Condominium Ass'n v. American Design & Dev. Corp., 470 So.2d 74, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Mack......
-
Mackin v. Applestein
...had lost jurisdiction to grant such relief. Hargraves v. Costin, 325 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA It is appropriate to add, however, that neither this opinion nor......