Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Turnberry Corp., No. 81-1950

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtBERANEK
Citation423 So.2d 407
Decision Date10 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-1950
PartiesWESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TURNBERRY CORPORATION and Charles Honey, et ux., Appellees.

Page 407

423 So.2d 407
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
TURNBERRY CORPORATION and Charles Honey, et ux., Appellees.
No. 81-1950.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District.
Nov. 10, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1983.

C. Robert Murray, Jr., of Lane, Mitchell & Harris, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Joseph S. Kashi of Conrad, Scherer & James, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Turnberry Corp.

BERANEK, Judge.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, defendant and third party plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from the adverse summary judgment on its third party complaint against Turnberry Corporation, third party defendant, seeking indemnity in compensating one Charles Honey, a worker in the employ of Turnberry, allegedly injured as

Page 408

the result of the wrongful doing of Westinghouse Corporation. We reverse.

Westinghouse, a sub-contractor, entered into a written contract with Turnberry, the owner and developer of a 16-story condominium, under which Westinghouse was to supply and install elevators for the condominium project. Pursuant to a "temporary acceptance" agreement, Westinghouse installed and delivered the elevators 13 months ahead of schedule. Charles Honey was injured when one of the elevators malfunctioned. Honey brought suit against Westinghouse alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. Westinghouse filed a third party action against Turnberry claiming indemnification and contribution under the written temporary acceptance agreement. The agreement reads as follows:

We desire to have possession and use of the elevators (electric stairways) upon which you are working under contract with us, dated __________ in the building known as Turnberry Isles.

As these elevators are to be used by us prior to completion and inspection, and as we recognize that you have had no opportunity to inspect and determine the character of the work you have performed, or the condition of the elevators, in consideration of your turning them over to us in an incomplete condition we agree to operate them at our risk and expense; to provide a competent operator in the car; to use your service for maintenance including 24 hour emergency call-back service and pay you therefor $75.00 per month during temporary use of the elevator. We further assume complete responsibility for any accident to persons or property, howsoever caused, and will indemnify and save you harmless against all loss, damage, claims, liability...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Williams v. White Mountain Const. Co., Inc., No. 86SA100
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 1 Febrero 1988
    ...Brands, Inc., 324 F.2d 137 (8th Cir.1963). The word "indemnity" is not required, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Turnberry Corp., 423 So.2d 407 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982), pet. for review denied, 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983), and its presence does not guarantee that an indemnity contract was ......
  • Federal Ins. Co. v. Western Waterproofing Co. of America, BF-158
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 Junio 1986
    ...seeks indemnification from the subcontractor for the general contractor's negligence. Cf. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Turnberry Corp., 423 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) rev. den. 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983) (section 725.06 found applicable to an agreement that specifically stated in clear a......
  • National R.R. Passenger v. Rountree Transport, No. 00-13811.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 1 Septiembre 2005
    ...Gas Sys., Inc. v. RSH Constructors, Inc., 563 So.2d 107, 109 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990); see Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Turnberry Corp., 423 So.2d 407, 409 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (finding agreement to deliver elevators ahead of schedule constituted "specific consideration" within the......
  • Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc. v. Huber Const. Co., No. 87-501
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Diciembre 1987
    ...Huber. This factor distinguishes the cases that Huber primarily relies on--Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Turnberry Corporation, 423 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983), and A-T-O, Inc. v. Garcia, 374 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA Accordingly, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Williams v. White Mountain Const. Co., Inc., No. 86SA100
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 1 Febrero 1988
    ...Brands, Inc., 324 F.2d 137 (8th Cir.1963). The word "indemnity" is not required, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Turnberry Corp., 423 So.2d 407 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982), pet. for review denied, 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983), and its presence does not guarantee that an indemnity contract was ......
  • Federal Ins. Co. v. Western Waterproofing Co. of America, BF-158
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 Junio 1986
    ...seeks indemnification from the subcontractor for the general contractor's negligence. Cf. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Turnberry Corp., 423 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) rev. den. 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983) (section 725.06 found applicable to an agreement that specifically stated in clear a......
  • National R.R. Passenger v. Rountree Transport, No. 00-13811.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 1 Septiembre 2005
    ...Gas Sys., Inc. v. RSH Constructors, Inc., 563 So.2d 107, 109 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990); see Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Turnberry Corp., 423 So.2d 407, 409 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (finding agreement to deliver elevators ahead of schedule constituted "specific consideration" within the......
  • Cuhaci & Peterson Architects, Inc. v. Huber Const. Co., No. 87-501
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Diciembre 1987
    ...Huber. This factor distinguishes the cases that Huber primarily relies on--Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Turnberry Corporation, 423 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983), and A-T-O, Inc. v. Garcia, 374 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA Accordingly, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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