Mutual Emp. Trademart, Inc. v. Armour Service of Fla., Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-408,64-408 |
| Citation | 170 So.2d 64 |
| Parties | MUTUAL EMPLOYEES TRADEMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. ARMOUR SERVICE OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam and Henry Burnett, Miami, for appellant.
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and John W. Thornton, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
The appellant was a defendant and crossplaintiff in the trial court. It will be referred to as 'Mutual'. The judgment appealed is a summary final judgment against Mutual on its cross-claim. The crossclaim sought indemnification to Mutual from its tenant-licensee, who was also a defendant in the trial court and is the appellee on this appeal. The tenant will be referred to as 'Armour.' Mutual was a closed-door membership department store and Armour was a tenant occupying a portion of the store under a written-lease agreement. The plaintiff, who is not a party to this appeal, filed an action for damages arising out of alleged personal injuries sustained in a warehouse area occupied by both Mutual and Armour. The complaint alleged negligence of both Mutual and Armour.
The agreement between Mutual and Armour included the following provision:
'Licensee hereby indemnifies and holds harmless Licensor, its officers, agents and employees, from any claim or liability of whatsoever character arising out of or resulting from Licensee's exercise of any rights or privileges hereunder * * *.'
As previously mentioned, the word licensee refers to Armour and the word licensor refers to Mutual.
The action was brought against both Mutual and Armour. Mutual cross-claimed against Armour alleging in part:
Both Armour and Mutual filed motions for summary judgment upon the complaint of the plaintiff Romayko. Mutual's motion for summary judgment on the claim of Romayko was granted and summary final judgment upon the claim was entered in favor of Mutual. Thereafter the cause proceeded to trial and the defendant Armour received a verdict.
After the trial both Mutual and Armour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great Divide Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co.
...evidences an intent that the indemnification provision be construed broadly.") see also Mut. Employees Trademart, Inc. v. Armour Service of Fla., Inc., 170 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (finding that indemnitee's potential liability arose out of indemnitor's operations). Here, Drawdy's ob......
-
Middleton v. Lomaskin
...of the lessors. St. Pierre v. Food Fair Stores, North Dade, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 9; Mutual Employees Trademart, Inc. v. Armour Service of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 64; Thomas Awning & Tent Co., Inc. v. Toby's Twelfth Cafeteria, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 756; 'Anno.......
-
Thomas Awning & Tent Co. v. Toby's Twelfth Cafeteria, Inc.
...Express Agency, Inc., (1962) 5 Cir., 296 F.2d 256. See also Fla.Jur., Indemnity § 6 and Mutual Employees Trademart, Inc. v. Armour Services of Florida, Inc., 170 So.2d 64 (Fla.App. Third District 1964). The next question that needs to be determined is whether or not such an indemnity agreem......
-
Shannon v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., 84-5267
...is equally applicable whether the indemnitee is successful in his defense of the suit or not. In Mutual Employees Trademart, Inc. v. Armour Service of Florida, Inc., 170 So.2d 64 (Fla.App.1964), Mutual (the licensor) sought indemnification from Armour (the licensee) for costs and expenses i......