ETIOLE INTERNATIONAL, N.V., A FOREIGN CORPORATION D/B/A CASA BELLA APARTMENTS, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Etiole International entered into an elevator maintenance agreement with Miami Elevator Company containing a broad indemnification clause. When a resident was injured due to the elevator's mis-leveling, the court affirmed summary judgment for Miami Elevator, holding that the indemnification clause clearly expressed intent to indemnify against Miami Elevator's own negligence and was therefore enforceable.
The indemnification clause was clear and unequivocal and thus enforceable to indemnify Miami Elevator against claims arising from its own negligence. The language "regardless of the cause of said actions and regardless of any negligence upon the part of MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY" clearly expressed intent to indemnify the company for its ordinary negligence, and no jury question was presented.
[1] Indemnification clauses will be enforced only if they clearly and unequivocally express an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee's own wrongful acts.
[2] Language in an indemnity agreement stating the indemnitor will hold the indemnitee harmless "regardless of the cause... …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Contracts of indemnification will be enforced only if they express an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee's own wrongful acts in clear and unequivocal terms.”
Establishes the legal standard for enforcing indemnification clauses against an indemnitee's negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEtiole International owned and operated Casa Bella Apartments and contracted with Miami Elevator Company for elevator maintenance. Laude Miguel Pena w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indemnitee's Own Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Etiole International is the owner and operator of the Casa Bella Apartments. It entered into an agreement with Miami Elevator Company for the maintenance of four elevators at the apartment complex. The agreement provides on the second page of the two page document:
Purchaser does hereby further unconditionally agree to indemnify and hold harmless MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY and its officers, directors and employees from any and all claims as enumerated above, including, but not limited to, any demands, judgments, awards, liabilities, costs, attorney’s fees or any other damages on account of any such actions or claims, regardless of the cause of said actions and regardless of any negligence upon the part of MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY.
[Emphasis added].
Laude Miguel Pena, a resident or visitor at the Casa Bella Apartments, was injured when he tripped and fell while leaving the elevator. The cause of the fall was a mis-leveling of the elevator approximately one inch below floor level on the building’s fourth floor. Pena sued Etiole and Miami Elevator. Etiole filed a third-party indemnity action against Miami Elevator. Miami Elevator counterclaimed against Etiole for indemnification. This appeal is brought from a summary judgment for Miami Elevator on both indemnity actions.
The dispositive issue is whether a jury question is presented on the question of the clarity and, for that reason, the enforceability of the indemnification clause.
Contracts of indemnification will be enforced only if they express an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee’s own wrongful acts in clear and unequivocal terms. Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1979). In drafting the contract to say that it would be held harmless “regardless of the cause ... and regardless of any negligence” on its own part, Miami Elevator clearly expressed its intent. We have approved similar language as effective to exonerate an indemni-tee for its acts of ordinary negligence. See Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). In John W. Eshelman & Sons, Inc. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 431 So. 2d 345, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), a similar indemnity clause, whereby the lessee agreed to hold the lessor harmless “whether such injury, death, loss or dam age resulted] from negligence of Lessor, its agents or otherwise”, was held unambiguous and enforceable. There is no appreciable distinction between this case and the two which are cited above.
The summary judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Banfield v. Songea Louis, 589 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…discussed earlier, was far less specific than the one at issue in the instant case. A waiver that identifies parties by capacity is sufficient to absolve those parties from liability as a matter of law. See Etiole Int’l, N.V. v. Miami Elevator Co., 573 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (summary judgment upheld where release purported to absolve from liability the officers, directors, and employees of a specifically named corporation); Sheen v. Lyon, 485 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1986) (waiver purporting to release a speci…
-
Black v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 581 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). . Some elevator service agreements even provide that the owner will indemnify the elevator service company for claims for negligence of the elevator service company. See Etiole International, N. V., v. Miami Elevator Company, 573 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
-
Comptech Int'l, Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd., 711 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…nk this language clearly expresses the parties intent that Milam be held harmless for any acts of its own negligence. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. D & J Constr. Co., 633 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Etiole Int’l N.V. v. Miami Elevator Co., Inc., 573 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Regardless of the validity of the indemnification clause, its relevance for purposes of our analysis is that it reflects Comptech agreed to negotiate rights regarding the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Charles POE Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1979)
- Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Albert v. Salemi, 431 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)