“First, the party seeking indemnification must be without fault, and its liability must be vicarious and solely for the wrong of another. Second, indemnification can only come from a party who was at fault.” Id. (citation omitted). “Additionally, Florida courts have required a special relationship between the parties in order for common law indemnification to exist.” Id. Undoubtedly, the most common factual scenario for an indemnity claim is where the party seeking indemnity was exposed to tort liability through no fault of its own. However, contrary to Tecno-glass’s argument, a party’s liability for breach of contract can form the basis for an indemnification claim against a third party. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Ace Elec. Serv., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1379 (M.D.Fla.2009) (<HOLDING>); Hiller Group, Inc. v. Redwing Carriers, Inc.,
holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract holding that a city which was sued by an electrical contractor for breach of contract following a dispute regarding additional costs necessary to complete electrical work could maintain a common law indemnity claim against a design professional to the extent the city is found to be without fault for the conduct which forms the basis of the indemnity claim holding that contractor waived right to sue city by failing to comply with notice provisions in the contract that were preconditions to litigation against the city holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract holding that a subcontractors lack of a license under the act does not bar a claim for indemnity or contribution by the contractor in a suit by the homeowner against the contractor because the public policy embodied in the act and berenter is to protect the public not unlicensed contractors