Griswold Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. v. Reddick
2012 WL 1216268, 134 So. 3d 985, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5600 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 725.06, an indemnification provision in any contract for or in connection with construction is void and unenforceable unless it contains a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification.
Facts:
- Griswold Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. ('Griswold') was contracted to deliver concrete for a residential home foundation.
- Because its truck could not get close enough to the pour-site, Griswold leased a pump truck and an operator from Pumpco, Inc. ('Pumpco').
- The work order for the lease contained an indemnification clause on its reverse side.
- This clause required Griswold to indemnify Pumpco against all claims and liabilities, including for injuries or deaths, arising from the use of the equipment, unless caused solely by Pumpco's intentional conduct.
- The indemnification clause did not contain any monetary limitation on Griswold's potential liability.
- During the concrete pour, the hose from the pump truck struck Tony Reddick ('Reddick'), a foreman for another company, knocking him to the ground and causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Tony Reddick filed a lawsuit asserting negligence claims against both Griswold and Pumpco.
- Pumpco settled Reddick's claims for $65,000.
- Pumpco then filed a cross-claim against Griswold in the trial court, seeking contractual indemnification for the settlement amount plus attorney's fees.
- Pumpco moved for summary judgment on its cross-claim.
- The trial court granted Pumpco's motion for summary judgment, finding the indemnification provision to be valid and enforceable.
- A final judgment was entered in favor of Pumpco, awarding it $69,378.39 in attorney's fees and $65,000 as 'additional costs'.
- Griswold (appellant) appealed the final judgment to the First District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida Statute § 725.06, which voids indemnification clauses in construction contracts that lack a monetary limit, apply to an equipment lease agreement between a concrete supplier and a pump truck lessor, even if a property owner is not a party to that specific agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Marstiller, J.
Yes. Florida Statute § 725.06 applies to construction-related agreements between any combination of the parties enumerated in the statute, such as materialmen and subcontractors, and is not limited to contracts involving a real property owner. An indemnification clause in such an agreement is void if it lacks a monetary limitation. The court reasoned that the statutory phrase 'or any combination thereof' means that if any combination of the listed parties (e.g., general contractor, subcontractor, materialman) enters into an indemnity agreement, the statute's requirements apply. The court rejected Pumpco's argument that the statute was intended to protect only property owners. Citing 'A-T-O, Inc. v. Garcia' as persuasive precedent, the court noted that a similarly-worded prior version of the statute was applied to an equipment lease between a lessor and lessee. Because the indemnity provision between Pumpco and Griswold did not contain a monetary limit, it is void and unenforceable under the plain language of section 725.06.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the broad scope of Florida Statute § 725.06, confirming that its requirement for a monetary cap on indemnity clauses applies throughout the construction-contracting chain, not just in agreements with property owners. The ruling prevents parties like equipment lessors and general contractors from using boilerplate contracts to shift unlimited liability for their own potential negligence onto subcontractors or suppliers. By voiding such uncapped clauses, the court reinforces the legislative intent to promote fairness and predictability in construction contracts, forcing parties who seek indemnification to negotiate a commercially reasonable and explicit limit to that liability.
