Bell South contracted with Mastec to provide access to underground utility lines. Mastec subsequently contracted with Blok Builders to perform the excavation work. A homeowner sued Blok when a residential driveway collapsed causing personal injury. Blok then sued Bell South and Mastec. Bell South and Mastec responded with contractual indemnity claims against Blok. Blok argued that the subcontract requiring Blok to indemnify Mastec did not comply with Section 725.06, Florida Statutes. The trial court found that Blok owed both Mastec and Bell South a duty to indemnify and defend.
On appeal, the Fourth DCA found that section 725.06 does not apply to Blok Builders contract because a utility line is not a “building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance” under the plain language of the statute. The Court also found that under the Blok/Mastec contract, Blok agreed to indemnify Mastec but that Blok did not have a contractual duty to indemnify Bell South.
Author’s note: The information contained in this article is for general educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation. Regulations and laws may vary depending on your location. Consult with a licensed attorney in your area if you wish to obtain legal advice and/or counsel for a particular legal issue.