SEFC Bldg. Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-648,94-648 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2553 SEFC BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Block Five Ventures, Inc., a Florida joint venture and Hines Interests, Limited Partnership, a Delaware corporation, Appellants, v. McCLOSKEY WINDOW CLEANING, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bender Bender Chandler & Adair and Harry Bender, Coral Gables, for appellants.
John S. Freud and Michael J. Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and GREEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment finding no liability from appellee McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc. ("McCloskey") to appellant SEFC Building Corporation, et al., d/b/a Block Five Ventures ("Block Five") pursuant to an indemnification agreement. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
McCloskey and Block Five entered into an agreement for McCloskey to perform window cleaning services at the Southeast Financial Center. The agreement contained an indemnification clause which provided that:
Section 8. Hold Harmless
a. Contractor [McCloskey] agrees to indemnify the Owner [Block Five] against, and hold the Owner harmless from and in respect of any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including attorney fees at all levels occurring, arising out of or relating to any injury to or death of any person or damage to or deterioration of loss of any property in connection with:
i. Contractor's work or other activity on or about the site;
ii. Any default of Contractor on any of its obligations under this Contract; and
iii. Any act or omission of Contractor, or its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors.
One of McCloskey's employees allegedly fell and was injured while washing windows at the Southeast Financial Center. The employee sued Block Five and alleged that his injuries were sustained as a result of Block Five's negligence.
After being sued, Block Five requested that McCloskey assume the defense on its behalf pursuant to section 8. When McCloskey refused, Block Five filed a third party claim against McCloskey for indemnification.
McCloskey answered the third party complaint and moved for summary judgment prior to the trial of the main action. In granting the motion for summary judgment, we find that the trial court correctly concluded as a matter of law, that Block Five was not entitled to indemnification because section 8 does not express such an intent in clear and unequivocal terms. Contracts which attempt to indemnify a party for its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor and will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerrero v. City of Coral Gables
...of Transp. v. Fla. Keys Elect. Co-Op. Ass'n, 831 So.2d 713, 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); and SEFC Bldg. Corp. v. Block Five Ventures, Inc., 645 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)).[2] Because the indemnification provision does not expressly state that Hillstone will indemnify or defend Coral Ga......
-
National R.R. Passenger v. Rountree Transport
... ... CORPORATION (AMTRAK), CSX Transportation, Inc., ... Corp. v. Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc., 385 So.2d ... v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979), and SEFC Building Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, ... See Houdaille, 374 So.2d at 492-93; SEFC Bldg., 645 So.2d at 1117. That is, both cases provide ... ...
-
Scotlynn USA Div., Inc. v. Titan Trans Corp.
... ... v. Edwards , 374 So. 2d 490, 49293 (Fla. 1979) ; SEFC Bldg. Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc. , 645 So. 2d ... ...
-
Rea v. Barton Protective Services, Inc., 94-2463
... ... v. New England Marine Corp. of Delaware, 386 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); ... See SEFC Bldg. Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc., ... ...