Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“t is clear that in the instant case the district court of appeal erred by applying a less stringent standard to cases involving parties who are jointly liable.”
42 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Royal Palm Hotel Property, LLC v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, Inc. (fladistctapp, 2014-02-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Royal Palm Hotel Property, LLC v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, Inc. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
t is clear that in the instant case the district court of appeal erred by applying a less stringent standard to cases involving parties who are jointly liable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Budzinski v. Mystic Powerboats, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
However, indemnity provisions that “attempt to indemnify a party against its own wrongful conduct will be enforced ‘only if they express an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee’s own wrongful acts in clear and unequivocal terms.’” Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 1992) (quoting Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois
11th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
And, even if Comegys had been negligent and that fact had been proven in court by the estate, we would still refuse to hold Safeco liable for Comegys’ own alleged negligence because Florida requires those kinds of arrange- ments to be clearly stated by contract.16 See Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 1992); Charles Poe Ma- sonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Guerrero v. City of Coral Gables
S.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Co., Inc., 511 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 1992); Univ.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Keller v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC
E.D. La. · 2019 · confidence medium
Fla. Mar. 7, 2013) (quoting Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla.1992)); see Charles Poe Masonry, 374 So. 2d at 489 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) On Target, Inc. v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
In the Cox Cable Corp. case, the contractual language under review was as follows: Licensee [Cox] shall indemnify, protect and save the Licensor [Gulf] forever harmless from and against any and all claims and demands for damages to property and injury or death to any persons including, but not restricted to, employees of Licensee and employees of any contractor or sub-contractor performing work for Licensee ... which may arise out of or be caused by the erection, maintenance, presence, use or removal of said attachments.... 591 So.2d at 629 (alterations in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) KITCHENS OF OCEANS, INC. v. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
This indemnification will survive termination of this letter." *272 In Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power, 591 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla.1992), the court explained that contracts of indemnification which attempt to indemnify a party against its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor in Florida and will be enforced only if they express an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee's own wrongful acts in clear and unequivocal terms.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Welch v. Complete Care Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Id.; Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Diversified Services, Inc. v. Simkins Industries, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla.1992); Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip.
cited Cited "see" Zeiger Crane Rentals, Inc. v. Double a Industries, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla.1992).
discussed Cited "see" Kone, Inc. v. Robinson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gulf Power Co. v. Cox Cable Corp., 570 So.2d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) ("This statutory provision expressly applies in situations when an owner of real property contracts for improvements to property."), quashed in part on other grounds, 591 So.2d 627 (Fla.1992).
discussed Cited "see" Rea v. BARTON PROTECTIVE SERV., INC. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Corp., 591 So.2d 627 (Fla. 1992).
discussed Cited "see" STATE, DOT v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla. 1992) (contracts for indemnification which attempt to absolve a party from its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor and will be enforced only if they express such an intent in clear and unequivocal terms). 3.
discussed Cited "see" Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. MCR Lumber & Materials Supply, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627 (Fla.1992); Chrysler Corp. v. Wolmer, 499 So.2d 823 (Fla.1986); American Cyanamid Co. v. Roy, 498 So.2d 859 (Fla.1986); University Plaza Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507 (Fla.1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aleron Group, LLC v. Ferguson (2×)
E.D. Va. · 2023 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 1992); Stewart, 272 So. 2d at 508–09; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Atl.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." BVS Acquisition Co., LLC v. Rory A. Brown
11th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 23 So.3d 180 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2009); see also Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla.1992) (holding the parties’ intent to cover the indemnitee’s own negligence was insufficiently clear and unequivocal in an indemnification clause providing that the indemnitor “shall indemnify, protect and save [the indemnitee] forever harmless from and against any and all claims and demands for damages to property and injury or death to any persons ... ”); Stewart, 272 So.2d at 508-09 (same for clause providing indemnification for “any and all claims for any personal injury …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. v. Paul N. Howard Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
University Plaza Shopping Ctr. v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507, 510-11 (Fla.1973); see also Ivey Plants, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 282 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); see also Cox Cable Corp. v. Gulf Power Co., 591 So.2d 627 (Fla.1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." American Chambers Life Insurance v. Power
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
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).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." PP Partners, Ltd. v. JJ Gumberg Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also, Cox Cable Corp., 591 So.2d at 629 (provision to "indemnify, protect and save ... forever harmless from and against any and all claims" held insufficient to provide indemnity); Charles Poe Masonry, 374 So.2d at 489 (provision assuming all responsibility for claims asserted by any person whatever and agreeing to hold harmless from all such claims held insufficient to provide indemnity); Jones v. Holiday Inns.
COX CABLE CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
GULF POWER COMPANY, etc., Respondent.
77247.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan 9, 1992.
591 So. 2d 627
Grimes.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published

[*628] David H. Burns and Mark E. Holcomb of Huey, Guilday, Kuersteiner & Tucker, P.A., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

J. Nixon Daniel, III of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for respondent.

GRIMES, Justice.

We review Gulf Power Co. v. Cox Cable Corp. 570 So.2d 379 (Fla.1st DCA 1990), because of its conflict with Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equipment Co., 374 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1979). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

Cox Cable Corporation (Cox) and Gulf Power Company (Gulf) entered into a written contract on January 1, 1978, authorizing Cox to attach its cables, wires, and appliances to Gulf's utility poles. The contract required Cox to ensure the safe installation and maintenance of any wires, cables, or devices attached to the poles and required Cox to indemnify Gulf against claims for personal injury and property damages. Cox hired Burnup and Sims, a cable installation contractor, to perform the installation. On July 16, 1981, Michael Lewis (Lewis), a Burnup and Sims employee, suffered electrical burns when he overtightened a guy wire during the course of installation. In 1984, Lewis sued Gulf in negligence for failure to warn him of the danger. Gulf then filed a third-party complaint against Cox seeking indemnification, claiming breach of contract and alleging[*629] that Cox's negligence was the sole and proximate cause of Lewis' injuries. Gulf eventually settled with Lewis in 1989 and filed notice of trial for the claims against Cox. Cox filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. The district court of appeal reversed, concluding that factual issues precluded the entry of summary judgment on any of Gulf's claims.

Gulf's claim for indemnification was based on paragraph 10 of the contract which provided in pertinent part:

Licensee [Cox] shall indemnify, protect and save the Licensor [Gulf] forever harmless from and against any and all claims and demands for damages to property and injury or death to any persons including, but not restricted to, employees of Licensee and employees of any contractor or sub-contractor performing work for Licensee ... which may arise out of or be caused by the erection, maintenance, presence, use or removal of said attachments... .

The district court of appeal recognized that contracts purporting to indemnify a party against its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor. However, the court stated that the degree of specificity required for indemnification in cases of joint negligence was less stringent. The court held that the indemnification language in paragraph 10 was sufficient to sustain indemnification where the parties are jointly liable and concluded that there were factual issues to be resolved concerning whether Gulf and Cox were joint tortfeasors.

In Charles Poe Masonry, this Court held that indemnity contracts which attempt to indemnify a party against its own wrongful conduct will be enforced "only if they express an intent to indemnify against the indemnitee's own wrongful acts in clear and unequivocal terms." Id. at 489 (citing University Plaza Shopping Center v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1973)). The Poe court noted that the indemnity provision in that case, like the one in University Plaza, employed "general terms" which did not disclose an intention to provide indemnification for the indemnitee's wrongful acts. Poe, 374 So.2d at 489. The court then said:

We are not unmindful of the fact that the majority in University Plaza limited its holding to instances where liability is based solely on the fault of the indemnitee. However, the public policy underlying that decision applies with equal force here, that is, to instances where the indemnitor and indemnitee are jointly liable. Under classical principles of indemnity, courts of law rightfully frown upon the underwriting of wrongful conduct, whether it stands alone or is accompanied by other wrongful acts. Hence we extend the holding in University Plaza to cases where the indemnitor and indemnitee are jointly liable.

Poe, 374 So.2d at 489-90 (citation omitted). Thus, it is clear that in the instant case the district court of appeal erred by applying a less stringent standard to cases involving parties who are jointly liable. Moreover, under the correct legal standard, the indemnity agreement between Cox and Gulf fails because it uses the same "general terms" which we rejected as insufficiently clear and unequivocal in Poe and University Plaza.

The relevant language in the indemnity provision in Poe was as follows:

The LESSEE assumes all responsibility for claims asserted by any person whatever growing out of the erection and maintenance, use or possession of said equipment, and agrees to hold the COMPANY harmless from all such claims.

Id. at 489. In University Plaza, the general language provided for indemnity "from and against any and all claims for any personal injury or loss of life in and about the demised premises." 272 So.2d at 508-09 (emphasis deleted). The language by which Cox purported to indemnify Gulf in paragraph 10 is virtually the same as these provisions. Therefore, even if Cox and Gulf were found to be jointly negligent, paragraph 10 was legally insufficient to provide indemnity to Gulf.

We also find that the district court of appeal erred in holding that Cox did not fully comply with its contractual obligations.[*630] Gulf alleged that Cox had breached paragraph 9 of the agreement which provided in pertinent part:

In the installation and maintenance of its facilities Licensee [Cox] shall utilize employees and contractors who are experienced in working with and around energized electrical conductors.

In response, Cox filed affidavits stating that it had contracted the work of installing the cable to Burnup and Sims Cable Company of Florida, Incorporated, a well-qualified cable installation company and one of the largest of its kind in the nation. Cox also pointed out that none of its employees were involved in the installation at the accident site. Because these assertions were undisputed, we hold that Cox did comply with paragraph 9 as a matter of law. There are no other portions of the contract which would call for a different interpretation of paragraph 9. It is not clear how this interpretation could be affected by Gulf's affidavit stating that Cox had been notified that Burnup and Sims' employees were engaging in unsafe work practices, including incidents of overtightening the guy wires. In any event, the record is undisputed that when these incidents were reported, Cox discussed them with Burnup and Sims and was assured that corrective action would be taken.

Accordingly, we quash the opinion below to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion. Because we do not address that portion of the opinion below which permitted Gulf to assert a claim for contribution against Cox, we remand the case for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, J., dissents.