Case Name: MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a MCM Corporation, Appellant, v. ARSO ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Sol A Trol Aluminum Products, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-08-14
Citations: 824 So. 2d 959
Docket Number: No. 3D02-92
Parties: MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a MCM Corporation, Appellant, v. ARSO ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Sol A Trol Aluminum Products, Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 824
Pages: 959–959

Head Matter:
MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a MCM Corporation, Appellant, v. ARSO ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Sol A Trol Aluminum Products, Appellee.
No. 3D02-92.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 14, 2002.
Alvarez, Armas & Borron, J. Alfredo de Armas and Arturo Alvarez, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Pedro F. Martell, Coral Gables, for ap-pellee.
Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In the underlying suit, a general contractor, Magnum Construction Management Corporation d/b/a MCM Corporation [MCM], entered into an agreement with Miami Dade County for the replacement of windows at an elderly housing facility. After the new windows were installed, they leaked. MCM filed suit against the County for nonpayment, and the County filed a counterclaim seeking damages as a result of the defective windows. MCM, in turn, amended its complaint by interlineation and sought indemnification from the manufacturer of the windows, Arso Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sol A Trol Aluminum Products. The trial court conducted a sixteen-day bench trial and specifically rejected MCM's defense that the defects were caused by the manufacturer. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly denied MCM's claim for indemnification.
We affirm the final judgments under review.