American Chambers Life Insurance v. Power

District Court of Appeal of Florida

American Chambers Life Insurance v. Power

690 So. 2d 683, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2798, 1997 WL 134070

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1997

DocketNo. 95-3484

StatusPublished

This text of 690 So. 2d 683 (American Chambers Life Insurance v. Power) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Chambers Life Insurance v. Power, 690 So. 2d 683, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2798, 1997 WL 134070 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of American Chambers’ cross claim against its agent, James Power. Looking solely at the four corners of the document, American Chambers’ cross claim sufficiently stated a claim for indemnity against Power. See Rushing v. Bosse, 652 So.2d 869, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (when reviewing the propriety of an order dismissing a complaint, the court must confíne its analysis to what appears within the’ four corners of the complaint, and must accept as true the well-pleaded allegations).

We note that this cause of action against Power may extend only to damages arising out of American Chambers’ contractual liability to its insured, incurred as a result of unauthorized acts and fault of the agent. Indemnity may not be sought for damages [684]*684awarded the insureds for the subsequent bad faith conduct of American Chambers. See Safecare Medical Ctr. v. Howard, 670 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (one seeking indemnity must be utterly without fault). See also, Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627 (Fla.1992) (where an indemnification agreement does not clearly and unequivocally express an intent to indemnify a party for its own negligence, it will not be enforced).

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and WARNER, 33., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of American Chambers’ cross claim against its agent, James Power. Looking solely at the four corners of the document, American Chambers’ cross claim sufficiently stated a claim for indemnity against Power. See Rushing v. Bosse, 652 So.2d 869, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (when reviewing the propriety of an order dismissing a complaint, the court must confíne its analysis to what appears within the’ four corners of the complaint, and must accept as true the well-pleaded allegations).

We note that this cause of action against Power may extend only to damages arising out of American Chambers’ contractual liability to its insured, incurred as a result of unauthorized acts and fault of the agent. Indemnity may not be sought for damages [684]*684awarded the insureds for the subsequent bad faith conduct of American Chambers. See Safecare Medical Ctr. v. Howard, 670 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (one seeking indemnity must be utterly without fault). See also, Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627 (Fla.1992) (where an indemnification agreement does not clearly and unequivocally express an intent to indemnify a party for its own negligence, it will not be enforced).

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and WARNER, 33., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

690 So. 2d 683, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2798, 1997 WL 134070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-chambers-life-insurance-v-power-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack