Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. Arso Enterprises, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. Arso Enterprises, Inc.

824 So. 2d 959, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11559, 2002 WL 1842897

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-92

StatusPublished

This text of 824 So. 2d 959 (Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. Arso Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. Arso Enterprises, Inc., 824 So. 2d 959, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11559, 2002 WL 1842897 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying suit, a general contractor, Magnum Construction Management Corporation d/b/a MCM Corporation [MCM], entered into an agreement with Miami Dade County for the replacement of windows at an elderly housing facility. After the new windows were installed, they leaked. MCM filed suit against the County for nonpayment, and the County filed a counterclaim seeking damages as a result of the defective windows. MCM, in turn, amended its complaint by interlineation and sought indemnification from the manufacturer of the windows, Arso Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sol A Trol Aluminum Products. The trial court conducted a sixteen-day bench trial and specifically rejected MCM’s defense that the defects were caused by the manufacturer. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly denied MCM’s claim for indemnification.

We affirm the final judgments under review.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying suit, a general contractor, Magnum Construction Management Corporation d/b/a MCM Corporation [MCM], entered into an agreement with Miami Dade County for the replacement of windows at an elderly housing facility. After the new windows were installed, they leaked. MCM filed suit against the County for nonpayment, and the County filed a counterclaim seeking damages as a result of the defective windows. MCM, in turn, amended its complaint by interlineation and sought indemnification from the manufacturer of the windows, Arso Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sol A Trol Aluminum Products. The trial court conducted a sixteen-day bench trial and specifically rejected MCM’s defense that the defects were caused by the manufacturer. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly denied MCM’s claim for indemnification.

We affirm the final judgments under review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 So. 2d 959, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11559, 2002 WL 1842897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magnum-construction-management-corp-v-arso-enterprises-inc-fladistctapp-2002.