Maule Industries, Inc. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corp., 74--1460
| Decision Date | 02 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1460,74--1460 |
| Citation | 323 So.2d 631 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. CENTRAL RIGGING & CONTRACTING CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, Papy, Levy, Carruthers & Poole, Coral Gables, for appellant.
George V. Lanza, and John A. Finn, Coral Gables, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.
Maule Industries, Inc., defendant and third-party plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from an adverse final judgment on its third party complaint against Central Rigging & Contracting Corporation, third-party defendant, seeking indemnity in compensating one Hessler, a worker in the employ of Central Rigging, allegedly injured as a result of the negligence of Maule.
Hessler brought suit for personal injuries against Maule, the construction project owner, alleging negligence on the part of Maule. Maule's third party complaint against Central Rigging is predicated upon an indemnity agreement entered into by McDonald Engineering Company, the general contractor, and Central Rigging, a sub-contractor. Maule claims to be a third party beneficiary of such agreement. The pertinent portion of the agreement is:
'The policy shall provide for Protective Liability with respect to operations of Sub-subcontractors and shall include Contractual Liability coverage for the following Indemnity Agreement, which Indemnity Agreement is hereby made a part of this contract:
'The Subcontractor hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the General Contractor and Owner from all suits, actions, legal proceedings, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees (herein called claims) and from all expense in defending claims, including without limitation court costs, attorneys' fees, the amounts of any judgments recovered, and any other expenses resulting from claims for bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom sustained by any person and/or resulting from injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use thereof, caused by, arising from, incident to, connected with or growing out of the performance of this contract, including without limitation, the act or omission of the Sub-contractor, his agents, servants or employees and/or by any Sub-subcontractor, his agents, servants or employees and/or by the General Contractor, his agent, servants or employees, and/or by the Owner, his agents, servants or employees."
The trial court determined that the indemnity agreement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Aviation Fueling Co., Inc.
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Logozzo v. Kent Ins. Co., 464 So.2d 605, 606-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. Maule Indus., Inc. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corp., 323 So.2d 631, 632-33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (indemnity agreement should be read, where possible, in favor of providing indemnity). See general......
-
Project Hawkeye, LLC v. Windlogics, Inc.
...and one which will deny it, the interpretation which provides liability must be applied." Maule Indus., Inc. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corp., 323 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). However, these decisions are in the context of indemnity provisions governed by § 725.06 Fla. Stat., w......
-
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. v. Paul N. Howard Co.
...As a third-party beneficiary, CDM was entitled to institute this action for indemnity. See Maule Indus., Inc. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corp., 323 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The indemnity clause was clear and unequivocal, and specific consideration was paid to Howard. Thus, the pr......
-
Air Agency, Inc. v. British Airways
...Cf. University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507 (Fla.1973), and Maule 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 f......