Sometimes referred to as “hold harmless” provisions, the indemnification section of a design or construction contract can have profound legal consequences. The concept of indemnification is not complicated—indemnification is an agreement to assume a specific liability, potential or actual, of another party in the event of a loss. It involves shifting risk from one party to another—essentially as insurance. When a contractor or design professional indemnifies a client, she or he assumes some or all of the client’s potential or actual legal liabilities, which may include attorneys’ fees and other defense costs.
Parties to construction contracts cannot, however, indemnify other parties for their own negligence. Section 11-4.1 of the Code of Virginia, while a little-known statute since its enactment in 1973, has recently become a significant issue for contractors and developers. Now, regardless of the actual cause of damages, an indemnification provision in a construction contract that indemnifies a party from its own negligence, is void and unenforceable. A new Virginia Supreme Court decision issued in November 2016 (Hensel Phelps v. Thompson Masonry) affirmed the Court’s earlier holding from 2010 in Uniwest v. Amtech, confirming that these provisions are still at issue in construction contracts. Because many form contracts do not appreciate this distinction, it is important to review these provisions before execution.
"...regardless of the actual cause of damages, an indemnification provision in a construction contract that indemnifies a party from its own negligence is void and unenforceable..."
When presented with a provision that requires you to indemnify or “hold your client harmless,” the best solution may be to ask for the provision to be deleted. This will probably not work (although it should not discourage you from asking). Another solution is to ask the client to indemnify you in the same way the client wants to be indemnified. This will give the client something to think about, and may help in negotiating a mutual indemnification provision that is fair to both sides. In any event, you should not agree to indemnify your client for the client’s own negligence (which, depending on state law, may not even be enforceable), and you should always check with your insurance consultant to determine whether a specific indemnification provision is covered.
- See more at: http://www.hf-law.com/construction-law-blog/indemnification-considerations-in-construction-contracts#sthash.WwekogCF.dpuf
As president of Hirschler and head of the firm's litigation section, Courtney knows how to lead people and projects to a successful outcome.
Leveraging deep experience in the construction industry, Courtney advises public and ...
Kelly’s practice focuses on construction law, commercial and product liability law, with an emphasis on dispute resolution—including mediation, arbitration, jury and bench trials in state and federal court. She routinely ...
Nate fully engages in each case and shoulders his clients’ needs. Communication, efficiency and careful judgment define his practice. In every case, he investigates competing claims to thoroughly understand their strengths ...
A professional engineer (P.E.) and an experienced lawyer, Webb began practicing at Hirschler Fleischer following four years of work as a consulting engineer. His multidisciplinary practice focuses on general business and ...
SubscribeSubscribe to Hirschler by Email
- Kelly Bundy Appointed to the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board
- Jaime Wisegarver Outlines Labor Department Guidance on Travel Time Pay in Construction Executive
- New Defense to Joint Liability Available to Contractors
- What Employers Need to Know About Virginia’s New Overtime Wage Act
- OSHA Increases Amounts of Civil Penalties for 2021
- Have Force Majeure Defenses Based on COVID-19 Been Successful This Year?
- Kelly Bundy and Liz Burneson Publish Article on Joint Employer Status in Construction Executive
- Kelly Bundy Authors Article for ABA Construction Law Forum’s “Under Construction” Series
- Miller Act Notice More Than 90 Days Before A Subcontractor’s Final Day of Work Held Untimely
- Virginia Supreme Court Allows Sub-Sub Material Supplier To Recover Directly From General Contractor For Unpaid Material
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- COVID-19, Coronavirus Outbreak
- Dispute Resolution
- Little Miller Act
- Government Contracts
- Miller Act
- Workforce Development
- Mechanic's Liens
- Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR)
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Lien Waivers
- Force Majeure
- Joint Checks
- Unjust Enrichment
- Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)
- Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission
- Uniform Statewide Building Code
- Change Orders
- August 2021
- June 2021
- April 2021
- January 2021
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016