Nothing can be certain, except death, taxes, and arguments about the enforceability of indemnification provisions in construction contracts. Indeed, the most commonly raised defense to a demand for indemnification is that the provision fails to comply with Florida’s Anti-Indemnification Statute, Section 725.06, Fla. Stat. This section applies to limit indemnification in construction contracts where an indemnitor (often a subcontractor) is required to indemnify an indemnitee (often a general contractor) for the indemnitee’s own negligence unless the contract contains a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract. Simple enough.
Or is it? Just because the statute is titled “Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification” does not mean it can be applied with a broad brush over all construction contracts. To the contrary, Section 725.06 clearly limits its applicability to construction projects impacting a “building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance. While a majority of construction contracts fall squarely within this definition, utility contracts often do not. One such contract was recently at issue in an opinion issued by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals.
In Blok Builders, LLC v. Katryniok, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D253b (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a utility owner hired a general contractor to overhaul its underground utilities. The contractor subcontracted the excavation and site work to Blok Builders, LLC (“Blok”). Not surprisingly, the subcontract between the contractor and Blok required Blok to indemnify the contractor for losses caused, in whole or in part, by any act, omission, default, or negligence of the contractor.
However, when an injury occurred during the project and the contractor looked to Blok for indemnity, Blok refused, contending the provision was subject to Section 725.06 and void and unenforceable as it failed to contain a monetary limitation. The contractor disputed Blok’s contention, arguing that the incorporated prime contract satisfied the requirement. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed and the contractor prevailed.
In what may have been a surprise to both parties, the Fourth District Court of Appeals ignored the issue of the monetary limitation and instead, pointed to the clear and unambiguous limiting the applicability of Section 725.06 to contracts dealing with the “. . . construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance . . .” Since the scope of the subcontract at issue dealt with the installation and maintenance of underground utilities and was otherwise unrelated to any buildings, structures, appurtenances, or appliances, the court held Section 725.06 was inapplicable and could not operate as a limitation on Blok’s indemnification. In so ruling, the Fourth District also noted its same analysis would apply to above ground utilities, and, presumably, and any other contract whose scope is not tied to “buildings, structures, appurtenances, or appliances.”
Simple enough.
Search Blog
Subscribe Today
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Pith? Perfect for Lienors, Not So Much for Landlords: Protecting Rights When Improvements Are Made to Commercial Tenancies
- Risks & Rewards of 3D Printing in the Construction Industry
- Back to (Construction) Work after COVID
- Drones in the Construction Industry
- COVID-19 Stimulus Relief and the Construction Industry
- PFAS Liability Litigation and the Construction Industry – Act Now or Pay Later
- How Evolving Technology Is Disrupting the Construction Sector
- Remaining Vigilant: Hurricane Planning in the Construction Industry
- COVID-Confusion: Force Majeure and Executive Orders
- Top Florida Legislation Affecting the Construction Industry in 2020
Popular Categories
- Construction Litigation
- Construction
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Landlord-Tenant
- Liens
- Real Estate Law
- Contracting
- Business
- Contracts
- General Liability
- Compliance
- Technology
- Florida Public Contracts
- Litigation
- Venue
- Insurance
- Privacy
- Technology
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Florida Procurement
- Florida Public Procurement
- Public procurement
- Liens
- Contracting
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Government Contracts
- Public Contracts
- Damages
- Regulatory Compliance
- Small Business
- Design Professionals
- Forum Selection
- Attorneys' Fees
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Designer Liability
- Business
- Regulation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Evidence
- Expert Science
Editors
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- August 2023
- November 2022
- July 2021
- June 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- December 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016