Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc. v. Huber Const. Co., 87-501

Citation12 Fla. L. Weekly 2914,516 So.2d 1096
Decision Date17 December 1987
Docket NumberNo. 87-501,87-501
Parties12 Fla. L. Weekly 2914 CUHACI & PETERSON ARCHITECTS, INC., Appellant, v. HUBER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Leslie King O'Neal of Markel, McDonough & O'Neal, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert D. Keough of Woolfolk, Estes & Keough, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc. (Cuhaci) appeals the final summary judgment entered in favor of Huber Construction Company (Huber). We reverse.

Cuhaci contracted with the owner of a shopping center project to prepare the construction plans and specifications for the shopping center, which Huber had contracted with the owner to construct. During construction, Johnny Roberts, an employee of Huber's masonry subcontractor, was killed at the shopping center construction site when an unbraced concrete block wall fell on him. Cuhaci and Huber were sued by Shirley Roberts, as personal representative of the estate of Johnny Roberts. Subsequently, final summary judgment was entered in favor of Cuhaci and Huber.

Vanguard Insurance Company paid the attorneys' fees and costs incurred in Cuhaci's successful defense of Roberts' claim pursuant to the terms of a professional liability insurance policy it had previously issued to Cuhaci. Cuhaci, for the use and benefit of Vanguard, brought the present action against Huber seeking indemnification for Vanguard's expenditure of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the indemnification provision of the construction contract between Huber and the owner of the shopping center project, which provides as follows:

4.18.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner and the Architect and their agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work, provided that any such claim, damage, loss or expense (1) is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the Work itself) including the loss of use resulting therefrom, and (2) is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described in this Paragraph 4.18.

The trial court entered final summary judgment in Huber's favor, finding that the indemnification section of the construction contract was void and unenforceable because of section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides as follows:

725.06 Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification.--Any portion of any agreement or contract for, or in connection with, any construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance, including moving and excavating connected with it, or any guarantee of, or in connection with, any of them, between an owner of real property and an architect, engineer, general contractor,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Great Divide Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 13 Marzo 2018
    ...§ 725.06 to the extent Aventura is seeking indemnification for the negligence of Drawdy. See Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc. v. Huber Const. Co., 516 So. 2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (stating that § 725.06 did not apply because the plaintiff was not making a claim for indemni......
  • CB Contractors, LLC v. Allens Steel Prods., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 14 Diciembre 2018
    ...we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that the entirety of the clauses are void. Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc. v. Huber Constr. Co. , 516 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) ; accord Pilot Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Babe's Plumbing, Inc. , 111 So.3d 955, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)......
  • Huber Const. Co. v. Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 31 Marzo 1988
    ...Huber Construction Company v. Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc. NO. 71,724 Supreme Court of Florida. MAR 31, 1988 Appeal From: 5th DCA 516 So.2d 1096 Rev. ...

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