725.06
Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
725.06 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: BLOK BUILDERS, LLC d/b/a IKON BUILDERS v. PEDRO KATRYNIOK, MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC
BLOK BUILDERS, LLC d/b/a IKON BUILDERS v. PEDRO KATRYNIOK, MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC (2018)
“Blok contends that its subcontract with 1 Mastec, which required Blok to indemnify Mastec for its own negligence, did not comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2008), and, thus, its contractual indemnification provisions were unenforceable.”
Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1981)
“" Jemco contends that this indemnity provision is void and unenforceable under Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1975). [4] UPS, although not conceding invalidity under Florida law, contends, and we agree, that Connecticut law, under which, UPS argues, the indemnity provision is…”
Kone, Inc. v. Robinson (2006)
“See § 725.06, Fla. Stat. . . . . Count II (Breach of Contract or common law indemnity) must be dismissed because again there is no evidence before the Court that Humana is a party to the contract upon which Kone relies for breach of contract.”
American Home Assur. v. NAT. RR CORP. (2005)
“28, Florida Statutes (1997), absent specific legislative authority, and because under section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1997), the terms of the provision failed to meet the requirements for such provisions when contained in construction contracts.”
Federal Insurance Co. v. Western Waterproofing Co. of America (1986)
“Counts I, II, and IV, seeking contractual indemnity, were apparently dismissed in part on the ground that the indemnity contract between the general contractor and subcontractor did not contain either a monetary limitation on the extent of damages, or specific consideration for…”
CONE BROS. CONTR. v. Ashland-Warren (1984)
“the grounds that: (a) the jury verdict finding appellee partially negligent precluded appellee's claim for contractual or common law indemnity in any of the four cases; (b) appellee was negligent in administering the contract or discharging its supervisory duties, thus…”
United Rentals, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. (2012)
“Fla. Stat. § 725.06 (1) (emphasis added).”
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. v. Paul N. Howard Co. (2003)
“Earlier in the proceedings, the trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of Howard and INA on the ground that section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1983), precluded CDM's claim absent specific consideration from CDM; that there was no special relationship by which CDM was…”
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. G.C. Zarnas & Co. (1985)
“A statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 725.06 (West Supp. 1985), declared certain indemnification provisions in construction contracts to be "void and unenforceable unless: "(1) The contract contains a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification and shall be a part of the…”
Griswold Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. v. Reddick (2012)
“Because we determine the indemnity provision at issue is void under section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2007), we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.”
Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Reeves (2002)
“(2001) (duty owed by insurance companies that disclose false information in cancellation letter); § 713.”
BE & K, INC. v. Seminole Kraft Corp. (1991)
“" BE & K contends it will be irreparably prejudiced by this premature entry of partial summary judgment "by precluding it from litigating the issues of whether the indemnity agreement complied with Fla. Stat. § 725.06 and whether the plaintiff's injuries, in the language of the…”
— 725.06(1) — 6 cases
BLOK BUILDERS, LLC d/b/a IKON BUILDERS v. PEDRO KATRYNIOK, MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC (2018)
“Blok contends that its subcontract with 1 Mastec, which required Blok to indemnify Mastec for its own negligence, did not comply with section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2008), and, thus, its contractual indemnification provisions were unenforceable.”
United Rentals, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. (2012)
“Fla. Stat. § 725.06 (1) (emphasis added).”
Griswold Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. v. Reddick (2012)
“Because we determine the indemnity provision at issue is void under section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2007), we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.”
— 725.06(1)(c) — 1 case
Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Reeves (2002)
“(2001) (duty owed by insurance companies that disclose false information in cancellation letter); § 713.”
— 725.06(2) — 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.