Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., No. 63-355

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: Before BARKDULL; BARKDULL
• Citation: 162 So.2d 298
• Parties: NAT HARRISON ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1964
• Docket Number: No. 63-355

Page 298

162 So.2d 298 NAT HARRISON ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee. No. 63-355. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. March 31, 1964.
Rehearing Denied April 20, 1964.

Page 299

Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

BARKDULL, Chief Judge.

By this appeal, the appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment finding liability from the appellant to the appellee under an indemnification agreement. The final judgment was rendered upon a jury verdict as to amount, after a partial summary judgment as to liability had been entered by the trial court.

The principal point on appeal is that the trial judge erred in rendering the partial summary judgment in that, as a matter of law, the written contracts failed to establish any indemnification agreement on the part of the appellant to indemnify the appellee against its own negligence. We conclude that the trial judge misapplied the law to the undisputed evidence in this record, and that it was error to enter the partial summary judgment and, therefore, the verdict and final judgment must fall.

It is the general principle of law that contracts of indemnification which attempt to relieve a party of its own negligency are not looked upon with favor. See: Altemus v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Del.1962, 210 F.Supp. 834; City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School District, 1956, 141 Cal.App.2d 733, 297 P.2d 752. In order for such a contract to be so construed, it must be clear and unequivocal. See: Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 575; Kay v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 156 Ohio St. 503, 103 N.E.2d 751; 27 Am.Jur., Indemnity, § 15; cases collected in Division IV, Subdivision B, of the annotation beginning at page 8 of 175 A.L.R. In the instant case, the appellant and the appellee entered into an agreement which is termed the basic construction agreement, wherein and whereby the appellant [as contractor] was to perform certain work for the appellee [as owner] as requested by subsequent purchase orders to be issued by the company. Pertinent paragraphs of the basic construction contract applicable to this appeal are as follows:

'3. That no work referred to in Section 1 shall be performed under this Agreement except when specifically authorized by a Purchase Order issued by Company to Contractor, and that this Agreement does not bind Company to authorize such work. Each Purchase Order issued by Company to Contractor will specify general area in which work is to be performed, terms of payment, and such other conditions as may be applicable to but not included in, This Agreement. Each Purchase Order will authorize performance by Contractor, of a specific job.

'16. That Contractor shall hold Company harmless and shall indemnify Company from any and all claims, actions, judgments, or expenses of...