Plaintiff, a homeowners association, brought a lawsuit for negligent construction and other statutory claims against a general contractor, and several of its subcontractors, including our client. The general contractor asserted a claim for duty to defend and indemnify against its subcontractors, including our client, and at the completion of discovery moved for summary judgment on its claim. HM&B, on behalf of its subcontractor client, argued that the indemnity provision was unenforceable because it did not comply with Section 725.06 of the Florida Statutes as it did not have the required monetary limitation for indemnity.
HM&B also argued that because the defense provision was intertwined with the indemnity provision, as it was contained in the same sentence, the defense clause must fail with the indemnity provision. The court agreed with HM&B’s arguments and held that the indemnity provision is not in compliance with Section 725.06 of the Florida Statutes and is therefore unenforceable. The court also held that because the duty to defend and indemnify were contained in a single sentence of the contract, they are not severable and the duty to defend is not enforceable and denied the general contractor’s motion for summary judgment against our subcontractor client. The opposition was prepared by Kira Tsiring and Jackeline Rodriguez.