Cases from cite.case.law:

CB CONTRACTORS, LLC, v. ALLENS STEEL PRODUCTS, INC., 261 So. 3d 711 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The lower court concluded that the clauses were void and unenforcable pursuant to section 725.06, Florida . . . Babe's Plumbing, Inc. , 111 So.3d 955, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (stating that section 725.06 would only . . . 1st DCA 1992) (notwithstanding void portion of indemnity clause for failure to comply with section 725.06 . . . Mar. 31, 2008) (concluding that section 725.06 only voided portion of contractual indemnity provision . . .

INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a a v. AMERICARIBE- MORIARTY JV, a, 906 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . under this Subcontract Agreement or $1 million, whichever is greater, and that the requirements of § 725.06 . . .

BLOK BUILDERS, LLC d b a a v. KATRYNIOK, a LLC, d b a AT T, 245 So. 3d 779 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Mastec, which required Blok to indemnify Mastec for its own negligence, did not comply with section 725.06 . . . Blok argues that section 725.06, Florida Statutes, applies to its contract, and because the contract . . . Based upon the plain wording of the statute, however, we conclude that section 725.06 does not apply . . . Mastec suggests that section 725.06 does not apply to utility contracts, which are quasi-governmental . . . Thus, we do not decide this case on the basis that section 725.06 can never apply to a contract with . . .

PILOT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. a v. BABE S PLUMBING, INC. a, 111 So. 3d 955 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Babe’s also argued that Pilot’s indemnity claims were barred by section 725.06, Florida Statutes (2005 . . . 725.06 because Pilot was seeking indemnification from Babe’s for Pilot’s own negligence. . . . Waterproofing Co. of Am., 500 So.2d 162, 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that section 725.06 operates . . . Pilot argues on appeal that section 725.06 “only applies to circumstances where the first party agreed . . . Section 725.06 would only bar Pilot’s claims for indemnification if Pilot’s claims were based on Pilot . . .

GRISWOLD READY MIX CONCRETE, INC. v. REDDICK, A, 134 So. 3d 985 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Because we determine the indemnity provision at issue is void under section 725.06, Florida Statutes . . . Section 725.06(1) reads, in part: Any portion of any agreement or contract for or in connection with, . . . The court held that the indemnity provision was “defeated by the terms of [section 725.06]” because it . . . For that reason, it is void and unenforceable as provided in section 725.06, and the trial court erred . . . Pumpco asserts that section 725.06 evinces the Legislature’s intent to protect only property owners from . . .

UNITED RENTALS, INC. v. MID- CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY,, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 725.06(1) (emphasis added). . . . for its own acts, omissions, or defaults, that portion of the Rental Agreement is void under section 725.06 . . . LEXIS 30718, at *9 (“Section 725.06 of the Florida Statutes only voided that portion of the Contract . . . Agreement is void as to United Rentals’s own “acts, omissions, or defaults” per Florida Statute section 725.06 . . .

MASTEC, INC. v. SUNCOAST UNDERGROUND, INC., 27 So. 3d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Furthermore, Suncoast concedes that the trial court applied the wrong version of section 725.06 when . . .

KONE, INC. f k a v. ROBINSON, 937 So. 2d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . , the contractual indemnification clause unenforceable due to Kone’s failure to comply with section 725.06 . . . We reverse the dismissal of Count I and remand the case for further proceedings, because section 725.06 . . . The hearing focused upon whether section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1999), applied to the maintenance . . . See § 725.06, Fla. Stat. . . . See § 725.06, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION AMTRAK CSX f. u. b. o. v. ROUNTREE TRANSPORT AND RIGGING, INC. WOKO f. u. b. o. v. CSX Co. CSX v. WOKO Co., 422 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . the Crossing Agreement is invalid because its terms do not satisfy the requirements in Fla Stat. ch. 725.06 . . . Stat. ch. 725.06 (1993). . . . Stat. ch. 725.06, we decline to second guess the court’s determination that KUA received consideration . . . As one Florida court noted, “[t]he ‘specific consideration’ required by section 725.06(2) need not be . . . Stat. ch. 725.06. . . .

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION,, 908 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2005)

. . . section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1997), absent specific legislative authority, and because under section 725.06 . . .

CAMP, DRESSER McKEE, INC. v. PAUL N. HOWARD COMPANY,, 853 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . the trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of Howard and INA on the ground that section 725.06 . . .

FLEETWOOD HOMES OF FLORIDA, INC. v. REEVES,, 833 So. 2d 857 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Stat. (2001) (liability for improper construction lien); § 725.06(l)(c), Fla. . . .

BARTON- MALOW COMPANY, v. GRUNAU COMPANY, M J, 835 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . indemnity provision in Barton-Malow’s subcontract agreement was void and unenforceable under section 725.06 . . . ’s ruling that the indemnity provision in its subcontract agreements is unenforceable under section 725.06 . . . Ashland-Warren, Inc., 458 So.2d 851, 855-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), this court held that section 725.06 does . . .

GEORGE S CRANE SERVICE, INC. v. SIGNAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., 819 So. 2d 233 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . agree with the trial court that the indemnification agreement did not meet the requirements of section 725.06 . . .

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION AMTRAK CSX f. u. b. o. v. ROUNTREE TRANSPORT AND RIGGING, INC. WOKO f. u. b. o. v. AMTRAK CSX Co. AMTRAK CSX J. E. Jr. f. u. b. o. v. WOKO Co., 286 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2002)

. . . They also contend that the indemnity provision is void and unenforceable under Florida Statute § 725.06 . . .

CAMP, DRESSER McKEE, INC. v. PAUL N. HOWARD COMPANY,, 721 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Florida Statutes (1983), and by Florida’s statutory limitation on indemnification contracts, section 725.06 . . . CDM and Howard was void and therefore unenforceable, because CDM had failed to comply with section 725.06 . . . , Florida Statutes (1983), which provides, in relevant part: 725.06 Construction contracts; limitation . . . See § 725.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1983). . . . .

CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. REED, CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. YORK,, 653 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . be wrongfully deprived of the right to raise whether the indemnity agreement complies with section 725.06 . . .

LINPRO FLORIDA INC. v. ALMANDINGER, 603 So. 2d 666 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . contractor, then the provision is unenforceable to that extent because it does not comply with section 725.06 . . .

BE K, INC. v. SEMINOLE KRAFT CORP., 583 So. 2d 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . indemnification because the contractual provision on which it relied failed to comply with section 725.06 . . . precluding it from litigating the issues of whether the indemnity agreement complied with Fla.Stat. § 725.06 . . . be wrongfully deprived of the right to raise whether the indemnity agreement complies with section 725.06 . . .

GULF POWER COMPANY, a v. COX CABLE CORPORATION,, 570 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Florida law because it was not specific enough to indemnify Gulf against its own negligence. 4) Section 725.06 . . . Whether section 725.06, Florida Statutes, precludes Gulf from maintaining an action for indemnification . . . Section 725.06, Florida Statutes, provides: Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification. — . . . Section 725.06, Florida Statutes, therefore, does not apply in this situation and would not preclude . . .

PEOPLES GAS SYSTEM, INC. v. RSH CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 563 So. 2d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . agreement and as a result the indemnification provision was void and unenforceable pursuant to section 725.06 . . . Section 725.06 provides: Any portion of any agreement or contract for, or in connection with, any construction . . . The “specific consideration” required by section 725.06(2) need not be a dollar amount. . . . In a fourth district case interpreting 725.06(2), Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. . . . that 1% of this amount represents specific consideration given to RSH within the meaning of section 725.06 . . .

CUHACI PETERSON ARCHITECTS, INC. v. HUBER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,, 516 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . indemnification section of the construction contract was void and unenforceable because of section 725.06 . . . , Florida Statutes (1985), which provides as follows: 725.06 Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification . . . Cuhaci argues that since it was not making a claim for indemnity for its own negligence, section 725.06 . . . America, 500 So.2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the First District noted as follows: We interpret [section 725.06 . . . Cuhaci did not seek indemnification for its own active negligence, and, therefore, section 725.06 was . . .

PINELLAS COUNTY, v MARTIN,, 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987)

. . . 13(a), 17 and 18 of this agreement constitutes sufficient and adequate consideration under Section 725.06 . . .

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. WESTERN WATERPROOFING COMPANY OF AMERICA,, 500 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . limitation on the extent of damages, or specific consideration for indemnity as required by Section 725.06 . . . That section reads as follows: 725.06 Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification. — Any portion . . . Appellant argues, among other things, that Section 725.06 applies only to indemnification against one . . . Specifically, Section 725.06 states in relevant part as applied to the factual scenario before us: “Any . . . Turnberry Corp., 423 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) rev. den. 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983) (section 725.06 . . . A literal reading of Section 725.06 requires us, according to the subcontractors, to apply the statute . . . they do not contain either a monetary limitation or specific consideration, as required by section 725.06 . . . If it sought the former, clearly it would be barred by the provisions of section 725.06, because it did . . .

ALONZO COTHRON, INC. v. UPPER KEYS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., 480 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . We find error in the trial court’s application of section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1977), as the ground . . . Section 725.06 does not govern the circumstances of the case under consideration. . . . Section 725.06 would apply if Coth-ron sought indemnification from Upper Keys for Cothron’s negligence . . .

MAMBA ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. v. JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY,, 470 So. 2d 758 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Mamba also challenges the finding that Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1973), is not applicable to . . . We therefore do not reach the issue raised concerning the applicability of Section 725.06, Florida Statutes . . .

CONE BROTHERS CONTRACTING COMPANY v. ASHLAND- WARREN, INC., 458 So. 2d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . recovery under contractual or common law indemnity; and (c) the contract failed to comply with section 725.06 . . . unless, the provision contains specific language expressly evidencing such intent; and (b) under section 725.06 . . . II.WHETHER SECTION 725.06, FLORIDA STATUTES (1983) IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CASE BECAUSE APPELLEE WAS AWARDED . . . In regard to appellant’s second point, we conclude that section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1977), which . . . appellee’s cause of action grew out of a breach of such a contract providing for insurance, section 725.06 . . .

GEORGE HYMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. AMERICAN DRUGGISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, 2 Fla. Supp. 2d 133 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1983)

. . . several affirmative defenses: failure to mitigate damages, invalidity of the surety bond under Section 725.06 . . .

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, v. TURNBERRY CORPORATION, 423 So. 2d 407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Westinghouse for Westinghouse’s own wrongdoing and further that it failed to meet the requirements of Section 725.06 . . . Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1979), sets out the requirements for indemnity agreements in construction . . . The statute reads as follows: 725.06 Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification. — Any portion . . . Only one of the sub-sections of Section 725.06 need be satisfied since the statute reads in the disjunctive . . .

JEMCO, INC. a a v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. a, 400 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . against UPS . .. . ” Jemco contends that this indemnity provision is void and unenforceable under Section 725.06 . . . Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (1975), provides: “Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification . . . incorrectly ruled that Florida law applied, but held that the monetary limitation requirements of Section 725.06 . . .

PFAUDLER COMPANY, v. SYLVACHEM CORPORATION,, 400 So. 2d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Company, 28 N.Y.2d 205, 269 N.E.2d 799 (1971), not the law of Florida, under which it is not, see § 725.06 . . .

WALTER TAFT BRADSHAW ASSOCIATES, P. A. v. BEDSOLE, N. B. C. CYPRESS BEND CORPORATION, v. BEDSOLE, N. B. C. P. A. WALTER TAFT BRADSHAW ASSOCIATES, P. A. v. BEDSOLE, N. B. C., 374 So. 2d 644 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . third party plaintiffs are third party beneficiaries of said contractual provision in view of Section 725.06 . . .

A- T- O, INC. a d b a Co. v. GARCIA GARCIA v. A- T- O, INC., 374 So. 2d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . indemnify A— T-0 against the consequences of A-T-O’s own negligence is defeated by the terms of Section 725.06 . . . disregard for the plaintiffs’ rights required to sustain a $1,000,000 punitive damage award.” . “§ 725.06 . . .

CHARLES GILLER ASSOCIATES, v. MILLER SOLOMON, INC., 369 So. 2d 106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . . § 725.06, Fla.Stat. (1977). . . .

J. E. Co. v., 81 Cust. Ct. 60 (Cust. Ct. 1978)

. . . under TSUS item 726.55, as modified, as “Parts of stringed musical instruments provided for in item 725.06 . . .

MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CENTRAL RIGGING CONTRACTING CORPORATION,, 323 So. 2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . additional premium for the coverage provided in the indemnity agreement, thus meeting the requirement of § 725.06 . . .

v., 73 Cust. Ct. 208 (Cust. Ct. 1974)

. . . merchandise was electric guitars (both hollow and solid body types) which were classified under item 725.06 . . .

M. Co. v., 66 Cust. Ct. 107 (Cust. Ct. 1971)

. . . in chief value of wood — were assessed duty by the government at the rate of 34 percent under item 725.06 . . .

v., 64 Cust. Ct. 452 (Cust. Ct. 1970)

. . . Both types were classified by the government under item 725.06 of the Tariff Schedules of the United . . . of headnote 2(c) and item 125.45, rather than as “other stringed [musical] instruments” under item 725.06 . . . provision for “electronic musical instruments” in item 725.45, and not under the provision in item 725.06 . . . However, the Bureau held, in addition, that hollow-body electric guitars were classifiable under item 725.06 . . .

S. MURRAY, v. UNITED STATES, 292 F.2d 602 (1st Cir. 1961)

. . . individually and as executor of the estate of Elsie Murray, sued to recover a refund in the amount of $15,-725.06 . . .

S. MURRAY, v. UNITED STATES, 191 F. Supp. 651 (D. Mass. 1960)

. . . income taxes in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars and Six Cents ($15,-725.06 . . .

DUNCAN El v. UNITED STATES, 247 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1957)

. . . And in the year of the second marriage, 1946, stock sales had produced a capital gain of $11,-725.06. . . .