|
|
The 2025 Florida Statutes
|
|
|
|
|
F.S. 725.06725.06 Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification.—(1) Any portion of any agreement or contract for or in connection with, or any guarantee of or in connection with, any construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance, including moving and excavating associated therewith, between an owner of real property and an architect, engineer, general contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or materialman or any combination thereof wherein any party referred to herein promises to indemnify or hold harmless the other party to the agreement, contract, or guarantee for liability for damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any act, omission, or default of the indemnitee arising from the contract or its performance, shall be void and unenforceable unless the contract contains a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract and is part of the project specifications or bid documents, if any. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification provided to the owner of real property by any party in privity of contract with such owner shall not be less than $1 million per occurrence, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Indemnification provisions in any such agreements, contracts, or guarantees may not require that the indemnitor indemnify the indemnitee for damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any act, omission, or default of a party other than:(a) The indemnitor; (b) Any of the indemnitor’s contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, materialmen, or agents of any tier or their respective employees; or (c) The indemnitee or its officers, directors, agents, or employees. However, such indemnification shall not include claims of, or damages resulting from, gross negligence, or willful, wanton or intentional misconduct of the indemnitee or its officers, directors, agents or employees, or for statutory violation or punitive damages except and to the extent the statutory violation or punitive damages are caused by or result from the acts or omissions of the indemnitor or any of the indemnitor’s contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, materialmen, or agents of any tier or their respective employees. (2) A construction contract for a public agency or in connection with a public agency’s project may require a party to that contract to indemnify and hold harmless the other party to the contract, their officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongful misconduct of the indemnifying party and persons employed or utilized by the indemnifying party in the performance of the construction contract. (3) Except as specifically provided in subsection (2), a construction contract for a public agency or in connection with a public agency’s project may not require one party to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the other party, its employees, officers, directors, or agents from any liability, damage, loss, claim, action, or proceeding, and any such contract provision is void as against public policy of this state. (4) This section does not affect any contracts, agreements, or guarantees entered into before the effective date of this section or any renewals thereof. History.—s. 1, ch. 72-52; s. 935, ch. 97-102; s. 31, ch. 2000-372; s. 10, ch. 2001-211. Note.—Former s. 768.085.
| |
Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 725.06
Total Results: 35
908 So. 2d 459, 2005 WL 1580639
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2005 | Docket: 1397399
Cited 39 times | Published
specific legislative authority, and because under section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1997), the terms of the
400 So. 2d 499
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 1981 | Docket: 267492
Cited 35 times | Published
indemnity provision is void and unenforceable under Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1975).[4] UPS, although
853 So. 2d 1072, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8792, 2003 WL 21359199
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2003 | Docket: 1660298
Cited 17 times | Published
favor of Howard and INA on the ground that section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1983), precluded CDM's claim
458 So. 2d 851
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1984 | Docket: 1452124
Cited 13 times | Published
and (c) the contract failed to comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1981), which imposes certain
906 F.3d 1329
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 26, 2018 | Docket: 8090709
Cited 11 times | Published
whichever is greater, and that the requirements of § 725.06, Fla. Stat. have been fulfilled and apply to this
833 So. 2d 857, 2002 WL 31875183
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2002 | Docket: 1259184
Cited 10 times | Published
(2001) (liability for improper construction lien); § 725.06(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001) (prohibition for indemnity
374 So. 2d 644
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 1979 | Docket: 430327
Cited 6 times | Published
beneficiaries of said contractual provision in view of Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1975). However, we need
583 So. 2d 361, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6113, 1991 WL 115136
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 1991 | Docket: 1284304
Cited 5 times | Published
provision on which it relied failed to comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes, and (2) that Bricker's injury
603 So. 2d 666, 1992 WL 191288
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1992 | Docket: 1475936
Cited 4 times | Published
that extent because it does not comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1991). The provision is
423 So. 2d 407, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22169
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 1982 | Docket: 544331
Cited 3 times | Published
that it failed to meet the requirements of Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1979). Summary judgment
134 So. 3d 985, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5600, 2012 WL 1216268
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2012 | Docket: 60239380
Cited 2 times | Published
indemnity provision at issue is void under section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2007), we reverse the judgment
937 So. 2d 238, 2006 WL 2527245
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2006 | Docket: 459563
Cited 2 times | Published
unenforceable due to Kone's failure to comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1999). As to Count II, the
422 F.3d 1275, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18984, 2005 WL 2099668
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 1, 2005 | Docket: 204591
Cited 2 times | Published
“[t]he ‘specific consideration’ required by section 725.06(2) need not be a dollar amount.”
Peoples
721 So. 2d 1254, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16033, 1998 WL 889725
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 1998 | Docket: 1322968
Cited 2 times | Published
statutory limitation on indemnification contracts, section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1983). We conclude that
570 So. 2d 379, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8749, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2809
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1990 | Docket: 1704227
Cited 2 times | Published
indemnify Gulf against its own negligence.
4) Section 725.06, Florida Statutes, precludes utilization of
563 So. 2d 107, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3103, 1990 WL 57803
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 1990 | Docket: 2451263
Cited 2 times | Published
provision was void and unenforceable pursuant to section 725.06(2), Florida Statutes (1987). We conclude that
374 So. 2d 533
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 1979 | Docket: 430360
Cited 2 times | Published
own negligence is defeated by the terms of Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1975).[3] The depositions
323 So. 2d 631, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18961
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 1975 | Docket: 1257837
Cited 2 times | Published
indemnity agreement, thus meeting the requirement of § 725.06(2), Fla. Stat. We further note that the indemnity
245 So. 3d 779
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2018 | Docket: 6375025
Cited 1 times | Published
for its own negligence,
did not comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2008), and, thus, its
contractual
653 So. 2d 1085, 1995 WL 214972
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 1995 | Docket: 1530032
Cited 1 times | Published
whether the indemnity agreement complies with section 725.06, a defensive issue that presumably was considered
470 So. 2d 758, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1333, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14512
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 1985 | Docket: 64612556
Cited 1 times | Published
insurance. Mamba also challenges the finding that Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1973), is not applicable
261 So. 3d 711
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2018 | Docket: 64700833
Published
clauses were void and unenforcable pursuant to section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2004), which provides in
261 So. 3d 711
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2018 | Docket: 64700832
Published
clauses were void and unenforcable pursuant to section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2004), which provides in
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2018 | Docket: 6288119
Published
for its own
negligence, did not comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2008),
and, thus, its contractual
111 So. 3d 955, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6627, 2013 WL 1748550
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2013 | Docket: 60230928
Published
that Pilot’s indemnity claims were barred by section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2005). The trial court granted
843 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 2012 WL 539362, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25065
District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2012 | Docket: 65979073
Published
specifications or bid documents, if any.
Fla. Stat. § 725.06(1) (emphasis added).
Paragraph 3 of the Rental
27 So. 3d 705, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 264, 2010 WL 173611
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 2010 | Docket: 1664241
Published
the trial court applied the wrong version of section 725.06 when analyzing the contract's indemnity provision
835 So. 2d 1164, 2002 WL 31526781
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2002 | Docket: 1754982
Published
agreement was void and unenforceable under section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1983). Under that statute
819 So. 2d 233, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8170, 2002 WL 1174387
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 2002 | Docket: 64815933
Published
agreement did not meet the requirements of section 725.06(2), Florida Statutes (1999), since it did not
286 F.3d 1233, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4956, 2002 WL 459731
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 26, 2002 | Docket: 212819
Published
is void and unenforceable under Florida Statute § 725.06 because its terms failed to meet the requirements
516 So. 2d 1096, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2914, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11559, 1987 WL 2774
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 1987 | Docket: 64631534
Published
contract was void and unenforceable because of section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides as
500 So. 2d 162, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1315, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8363
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 1986 | Docket: 64624085
Published
consideration for indemnity as required by Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1972). That section reads
480 So. 2d 136, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2715, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17272
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1985 | Docket: 64616243
Published
find error in the trial court’s application of section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1977), as the ground for
400 So. 2d 503, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20018
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 1981 | Docket: 64583575
Published
the law of Florida, under which it is not, see § 725.06, Fla.Stat. (1975), applies. Jemco, Inc. v. United
369 So. 2d 106, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 21042
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1979 | Docket: 64569291
Published
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. § 725.06, Fla.Stat. (1977).
