REPOR BROTHERS, INC. v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

REPOR BROTHERS, INC. v. Moore

83 So. 3d 903, 2012 WL 555422, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 2012

Docket3D10-2251

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 So. 3d 903 (REPOR BROTHERS, INC. v. Moore) 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

REPOR BROTHERS, INC. v. Moore, 83 So. 3d 903, 2012 WL 555422, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

CORTINAS, J.

We reverse the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in this case as “[a] contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting from his own negligent acts unless such intention is expressed in clear and unequivocal terms.” Univ. Plaza Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1973) (citing 41 Am. Jur.2d, Indemnity, § 15). “Contracts which attempt to indemnify a party for its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor and will be enforced only if they express such intent in clear, unequivocal terms.” S.E.F.C. Bldg. Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc., 645 So.2d 1116, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So.2d 487 (Fla.1979); Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Volpe Constr. Co., 511 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Nat Harrison Assocs., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 162 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

Reversed and remanded.

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

CORTINAS, J.

We reverse the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in this case as “[a] contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting from his own negligent acts unless such intention is expressed in clear and unequivocal terms.” Univ. Plaza Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1973) (citing 41 Am. Jur.2d, Indemnity, § 15). “Contracts which attempt to indemnify a party for its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor and will be enforced only if they express such intent in clear, unequivocal terms.” S.E.F.C. Bldg. Corp. v. McCloskey Window Cleaning, Inc., 645 So.2d 1116, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So.2d 487 (Fla.1979); Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Volpe Constr. Co., 511 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Nat Harrison Assocs., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 162 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 3d 903, 2012 WL 555422, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/repor-brothers-inc-v-moore-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack