Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Even construing the indemnity provision strictly in favor of TPS, see U.S.B. Acquisition Co. v. Stamm, 660 So.2d 1075, 1079 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995), we find no support whatsoever for TPS’s reading of “attorneys’ fees” as applying only to judgments obtained against SBA by third parties. Nor do we find any basis under Florida law for setting aside an express attorneys’ fee provision in a duly executed, arms-length commercial contract. The cases on which TPS relies are inapposite, as they address only attorneys’ fees incurred in establishing the right to common-law indemnity, not contractual indemnity. See, e.g., Bravo Elec. Co., Inc. v. Carter Elec. Co., 532 So.2d 698, 701 n. 3 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1988) (Cowat, J., dissenting); cf. Kuhns v. Koob, 408 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Avis Renh-A-Car 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys fees and court costs are recoverable under general hold harmless indemnity agreement (B) holding that insured may recover legal fees incurred in defending itself in a declaratory judgment action brought by insurer but not for those incurred in prosecuting cross claims and counterclaims against insurers (C) holding that indemnitee may recover attorneys fees incurred in defending indemnity agreement (D) holding theft act entitles defendant to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys fees in successfully defending theft act claim even if defendant does not recover any actual damages (E) holding that beneficiaries of an alleged will may recover reasonable expenses and attorneys fees when defending a will in good faith
Output (English): holding that insured may recover legal fees incurred in defending itself in a declaratory judgment action brought by insurer but not for those incurred in prosecuting cross claims and counterclaims against insurers