Pfaudler Co. v. Sylvachem Corp.

400 So. 2d 503, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20018
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 2, 1981·No. No. 80-17·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment entered against Pfaudler Company on its third-party complaint for indemnity based'on its contract with Sylvachem Corporation. The contract was made in New York, and for that reason we hold that New York law, under which the indemnity agreement is valid and enforceable, see e. g., Levine v. Shell Oil Company, 28 N.Y.2d 205, 269 N.E.2d 799 (1971), not the law of Florida, under which it is not, see § 725.06, Fla.Stat. (1975), applies. Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 400 So.2d 499 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Our holding makes it unnecessary to decide whether the parties by providing that their contract “shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York” expressly selected the law of New York to govern their agreement. Compare Boat Town U.S.A., Inc. v. Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick Corporation, 364 So.2d 15 (Fla.4th DCA 1978), with C. A. May Marine Supply Company v. Brunswick Corporation, 557 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1977).1

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes

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

Pfaudler Co. v. Sylvachem Corp., 400 So. 2d 503, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20018 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

400 So. 2d 503 (Pfaudler Co. v. Sylvachem Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. G.C. Zarnas & Co.
498 A.2d 605 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Fred Teitelbaum Construction Co. of Florida v. Sante Fe Development Corp.
462 So. 2d 560 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)