Indemnity Clause

Status
Not open for further replies.

ITO

Senior Member
Location
Texas
So... anyone have a copy of an Indemnity Clause they can live with?

Specifically I am looking for something the GC will take and feel somewhat protected yet does not shift 100% of anything that can go wrong on a job on to my plate and turn me into a defacto surety as I pay for their full defense even if I have nothing to do with what went wrong.

Just something a little more fair.

Every time I ask my lawyer for help on this all he wants to do is read all my contracts (by the hour).
 
Rewire said:
My first choice would be to get a new lawyer,my last choice would be to rely on a message board for legal advice.

This is true, unless someone with time and motive has access to an $100 per hour law database, and feels ITO's efforts to help others deserves a relevant reference.

Copyright (c) 2007 St. Mary's University of San Antonio St. Mary's Law Journal, 2007, 39 St. Mary's L. J. 423, 13778 words, COMMENT: SETTING THE LIMITS IN TEXAS CONSTRUCTION LAW: A LOOK AT THE SURETY'S LIMITATIONS UNDER INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS AND EQUITABLE SUBROGATION, JOHN C. WARREN
 
Rewire said:
My first choice would be to get a new lawyer,my last choice would be to rely on a message board for legal advice.

With all due respect this is something that affect us contractors and something we should be talking bout and I am fishing for other right answers.

Any advice I take will be by my own choosing and based on what I know. To be honest some of the worst advice I have ever had, has come from a lawyer, and even then I will still probably have to have one draft up something for me.

Tomorrow when I get in the office I will type up one of the clauses I am talking about....
 
Last edited:
we are doing a project in a local hospital...the hospital is union...this project is in the Wellness center and is a TI for a dialysis clinic...the project is non-union...we just had an Indemnity Clause written and added to our contract in case of "issues" outside of our control...

not sure that would help you:D
 
The ABC has some hold harmless language you can get if you're a member. I say, that's what insurance is for. Is there something, in particular, that concerns you about a certain job?
 
I was just thinking, maybe a mandatory 3rd party arbitration clause would suit your needs better?

In any event, your indemnity agreement should only indemnify the general contractor for "all claims arising out of or resulting from the performance or failure in performance of XYZ Electrical's work caused, in whole or in part, by any negligent act or omission of XYZ Electrical." That way, you're only liable for your own screw-ups and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
This is a ?standard? Indemnity Clause that is on most commercial contracts FROM the GC, that I have to sign. I really don?t like them and am looking for a substitute clause that the GC will accept. Bear in mind while reading, this is NOT one of the really bad ones, and there is usually another clause somewhere in the contract asking the subcontractor to name the GC as an insured party as well.

Standard Subcontractor Indemnity Clause: Broad From Indemnity For Sole Gegligence
To the fullest extent permitted by law, subcontractor agrees to defend, hold harmless and unconditionally indemnify contractor and owner, their officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, contractor?s surety and all parties whom contractor is required to indemnify pursuant to the term of the contract documents, against and for all liability cost expenses, claims, liens, citations, penalties, fines, at attorney?s fees, losses, and damages which contractor may at any time suffer or sustain or become liable for by reason of any accidents, damage or injuries either to the persons or property, including loss of the use or property, or both, of subcontractor or contractor, or the workmen of either party, or of any other parties, in any matter arising out of or resulting from subcontractor?s performance or failure to perform hereunder or defects in materials or goods supplied by or on behalf of subcontractor, including, but not limited to, any negligent act or omission or claim involving strict liability or negligence per se of contractor or owner, their officers, director, shareholders, employees, agents, contractor?s surety and all parties whom contractor is required to indemnify pursuant to the terms of the contract documents, subcontractor shall obtain insurance sufficient to cover its indemnity obligations in this article 19, but the coverage of any insurance policy requirements herein or actually carried by the subcontractor shall not be limit the extent of subcontractor?s of subcontractor?s liability under the foregoing indemnity.

(The next paragraph goes into gory detail about how you have to also pay all their legal bills too...)

Ok a couple of quick definitions for those of use who hate legaleze, and to help show this clause is a lot more than just a hold harmless agreement:

Indemnity: To secure against hurt, loss, or damage: to make compensation for incurred hurt, loss, or damage.

Surety: One who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another.
 
mdshunk said:
I was just thinking, maybe a mandatory 3rd party arbitration clause would suit your needs better?

In any event, your indemnity agreement should only indemnify the general contractor for "all claims arising out of or resulting from the performance or failure in performance of XYZ Electrical's work caused, in whole or in part, by any negligent act or omission of XYZ Electrical." That way, you're only liable for your own screw-ups and nothing else.

Our insurance underwriters will not let us modify our contract in any way, without their review, and approval in writing.
 
Subrogation: The assumption by an insurance company of another's legal right to collect a debt or damages.

There are a bunch of issues surrounding these clauses and on the commercial side of the industry we are struggling to manage our exposure while still trying to get work. There is some background behind these clauses.

Back in the day all the subs and the GC would sign an agreement to waive subrogation, which basically meant we ALL waived our rights to sue each other under specific circumstances and should there be a disaster on the job, like a fire or something everyone’s insurance would be pooled to rectify the fire damage and then to sell the job to the owner. The bottom line being no one sub-contractor’s insurance would be enough to cover the damage, but all parties involved were still contractually obligated to provide a completed building by the schedule, so with the right contractual language in place the subs and GC insurance would pool the liability and complete the project.

That was how we used to do it, now things are a bit more complicated. Under the “standard indemnity clause” above, when something like a fire happens the liability pool is divided among all the subs, but the GC does not get a piece of that pie. Why? Because they have not waived their right of subrogation and have explicitly made that clear with the signed contract that the subs agreed to indemnify the GC “against any and all claims”, even if they GC is the “Negligent party”. To further complicate this there is usually a second clause in the same contract naming the GC as an insured party (on your insurance) which basically prevents you from suing them for an insurance claim.

Same fire (started by the roofer), in present day, with the “standard indemnity clause”, all the subs will end up pooling their insurance to pay for the damage, while the GC has no obligation to file on their policy at all.

The job is somehow built with your insurance money for a fire you had nothing to do with, and the project turned over to the owner 9 months late. So who pays the liquidated damages? Who pays for what the insurance does not cover? Keep in mind you had nothing to do with starting the fire but your insurance is maxed out, now what? Remember this last line on the clause?

the coverage of any insurance policy requirements herein or actually carried by the subcontractor shall not be limit the extent of subcontractor’s of subcontractor’s liability

That’s right so when you get that registered letter a year after you finished that disaster of a project, you will know who gets to pay the LDs out of your pocket.

So who pays for the GC’s loss on the project? That’s right you get to pay that too, read the contract.
 
Last edited:
ITO said:
Subrogation: The assumption by an insurance company of another's legal right to collect a debt or damages.

There are a bunch of issues surrounding these clauses and on the commercial side of the industry we are struggling to manage our exposure while still trying to get work. There is some background behind these clauses.

Back in the day all the subs and the GC would sign an agreement to waive subrogation, which basically meant we ALL waived our rights to sue each other under specific circumstances and should there be a disaster on the job, like a fire or something everyone?s insurance would be pooled to rectify the fire damage and then to sell the job to the owner. The bottom line being no one sub-contractor?s insurance would be enough to cover the damage, but all parties involved were still contractually obligated to provide a completed building by the schedule, so with the right contractual language in place the subs and GC insurance would pool the liability and complete the project.

That was how we used to do it, now things are a bit more complicated. Under the ?standard indemnity clause? above, when something like a fire happens the liability pool is divided among all the subs, but the GC does not get a piece of that pie. Why? Because they have not waived their right of subrogation and have explicitly made that clear with the signed contract that the subs agreed to indemnify the GC ?against any and all claims?, even if they GC is the ?Negligent party?. To further complicate this there is usually a second clause in the same contract naming the GC as an insured party (on your insurance) which basically prevents you from suing them for an insurance claim.

Same fire (started by the roofer), in present day, with the ?standard indemnity clause?, all the subs will end up pooling their insurance to pay for the damage, while the GC has no obligation to file on their policy at all.

The job is somehow built with your insurance money for a fire you had nothing to do with, and the project turned over to the owner 9 months late. So who pays the liquidated damages? Who pays for what the insurance does not cover? Keep in mind you had nothing to do with starting the fire but your insurance is maxed out, now what? Remember this last line on the clause?

the coverage of any insurance policy requirements herein or actually carried by the subcontractor shall not be limit the extent of subcontractor?s of subcontractor?s liability

That?s right so when you get that registered letter a year after you finished that disaster of a project, you will know who gets to pay the LDs out of your pocket.

So who pays for the GC?s loss on the project? That?s right you get to pay that too, read the contract.

Insurance laws will from state to state, but the best advice we had was from a contract attorney, always have your contract signed, and do not agree to the terms and clauses in the GC's or Owners contract, one of the main reasons to use an attorney on larger contract jobs.

What you can do to have a better relationship with the GC's and the owners, is discuss additional insured, as an option to protect the project, just remember there is a cost involved with additional insured.

Your insurance carrier may now allow you to offer indemnity clauses in your contract. it could void your protection.

Underwriters are there to assist you in designing coverages for larger projects, check with your agent, and ask to talk with a company underwriter, they can answer all your questions and make suggestions, for improvements in your coverages.
 
Yes, I thought this too but have had little success in eliciting help from my underwriters, the most I have ever gotten out of them is ?I would not sign that if I were you?.

At this point I suspect they also underwrite the GCs policy as well and this clause is somehow beneficial to them, especially since I pay al the legal bills too.
 
ITO, ya done good to question it.

What if you just propose deleting it? If the GC wants you to do the job, he may be able to accept the change. Then you just need to wonder what happens if there is an issue later (still a possibility, and you are correct to decide it now). You may be better with an uncertain procedure than a bad one. Your ins. agent may be able to offer some really good advise without the cost of an attorney- plus it shows him that you are proactive about risk management.
 
Well I figured out what it all means, but it only really effects Texans because of some unique loopholes in our laws.

I also figured out a magic bullet for it too, but since it only applies to Texans, I am not going to post it.

Thanks everyone for your comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top