Associate Attorney
In Walgreen Co. v. Pappalardo (Fla. 6th DCA June 5, 2026), the Sixth District reversed summary judgment, holding that a contractual indemnity claim is governed by the parties’ agreement—not whether the indemnitor owed a duty to the injured plaintiff.
What happened:
A customer sued Walgreen after tripping on an uneven sidewalk. Walgreen filed a crossclaim against its maintenance contractor, Dynaserv, alleging Dynaserv breached its contract by failing to notify Walgreen of the dangerous condition.
The trial court dismissed Walgreen’s contractual indemnity claim after finding Dynaserv owed no duty to the plaintiff.
The Sixth District reversed.
The court held that contractual indemnity is based on the language of the parties’ contract—not on whether the contractor owed a legal duty to the injured party. Because the contract required Dynaserv to notify Walgreen of hazards and indemnify Walgreen for losses arising from its breach, summary judgment was improper.
Why it matters (for trial lawyers):
• Contractual indemnity is determined by the parties’ agreement—not common law indemnity principles.
• Whether the contractor owed a duty to the plaintiff is irrelevant to a contractual indemnity claim.
• On summary judgment, the moving party must either negate an essential element or show the opposing party lacks evidence. Simply arguing the plaintiff had no claim is not enough.
Takeaway:
When evaluating an indemnity claim, start with the contract. If the agreement broadly requires indemnification for a party’s contractual breaches, the absence of a duty to the plaintiff does not eliminate the indemnity obligation.
Stay sharp with us.
Contractual indemnity lives and dies by the language of the contract—not by the plaintiff’s negligence allegations.
*************************
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.