ILNews

DTCI: Effective risk transfer in a contract

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

Lewis Wooton By Lewis S. Wooton

For nearly every major construction project, a construction contract is entered into before construction begins. In almost all of those contracts, provisions are made for the transfer of risk. All too often the parties to the contract fail to effectively transfer their risks in accordance with their intention. As the construction law landscape has evolved, the importance of efficient risk transfer has heightened. The most common methods for transferring risk in construction contracts are indemnity provisions and additional insured provisions. This article discusses the primary considerations to be taken into account when preparing common contractual risk transfer provisions and insuring that the contractual provisions are followed.

1. Indemnity Provisions

Indemnity agreements have been in construction contracts for as long as construction contracts have existed. In its simplest form, an indemnity provision is a clause where one party agrees to answer for liability that another party might incur. Despite the relatively simple purpose of indemnity provisions, careful attention must be paid to indemnity provisions in construction contracts to insure that the provisions comply with the law of the state where the work is to occur. Most states have extensive case law and statutes related to the enforceability of indemnity provisions, and Indiana is no different.

Under Indiana law, a provision in a construction or design contract that purports to indemnify the promisee against liability for the promisee’s sole negligence or willful misconduct is void and unenforceable. See Indiana Code § 26-2-5-1 (2002). Further, a party may agree to indemnify another for the other’s own negligence (not sole negligence), only if the party knowingly and willingly agrees to the indemnification. See GKN v. Starnes, 798 N.E.2d 548, 552 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Indiana courts disfavor indemnity provisions because courts “are mindful that to obligate one party for the negligence of another is a harsh burden that a party would not lightly accept.” Id. Indemnity provisions are strictly construed and will not provide indemnification unless the terms of the indemnification are stated in clear and unequivocal terms. Id.

Indiana courts follow a two-step analysis to determine whether an indemnity provision is enforceable. Id. First, the indemnification clause must expressly state in clear and unequivocal terms the area of application. Id. For example, if an indemnification clause is to be applied to a negligence action, the provision must use the “language of negligence,” including words such as liability, damages, actions, omissions, duties, causation, claims, losses, and expenses. Id.

Second, the provision must state in clear and unequivocal terms that it applies to indemnification of the indemnitee by the indemnitor for the indemnitee’s own negligence. Id. There appear to be no exceptions to this rule, and absent express language indicating that the indemnitor agrees to indemnify the indemnitee for the indemnitee’s own negligence, an indemnity provision simply will not be enforced. See Hagerman Construction Corp. v. Long Electric Co., 741 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that indemnity provision indicating that promisor will indemnify promisee “to the fullest extent permitted by law” was insufficient language to require promisor to indemnify promisee for promisee’s own negligence where it was not explicitly stated that promisor would indemnify promisee for promisee’s own negligence).

If an indemnity provision contains a clear explanation of the area of applicability and an unequivocal statement that the promisor will indemnify the promisee for the promisee’s own negligence, the provision should be enforceable. However, because of the specific requirements under Indiana law, and the fact that indemnity provisions are disfavored and strictly construed, it makes sense to use an indemnification provision that has already been approved by an Indiana appellate court where possible. The following provision, analyzed in Starnes, was explicitly held to be enforceable:

[Subcontractor] shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner, the Architect Engineer, and [General Contractor] and their agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, causes of action, losses and expenses, including attorney’s fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work, provided that such claim, damage, loss or expense (1) is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the work itself) including the loss of use resulting therefrom; and (2) is caused in whole or in part by an negligent act or omission of [Subcontractor]or any of his subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or for anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether it is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder.

Id. at 550.

If the provision shown above accurately portrays the indemnity agreement that your client wants and expects, you should review your client’s contract documents to determine whether the substantial equivalent of the above provision is in the contract. If it is not, consider inserting the indemnification agreement shown above. A little tweaking of your clients’ contracts now may lead to big savings down the road.

2. Additional Insured Provisions

The first step toward insuring that the most beneficial additional insured coverage is provided for your client is to draft a proper additional insured provision into each construction contract. A provision that states “subcontractor shall obtain commercial general liability insurance and name general contractor as an additional insured under the policy” is simply insufficient to reflect the true intent of the parties in most situations.

Additional insured endorsements come in numerous shapes and sizes. The insurance industry has created dozens of endorsements to suit a variety of purposes. Most insurance companies give contractors the option to purchase a “blanket” additional insured endorsement. Blanket additional insured endorsements generally provide additional insured coverage if it is required in a written contract or agreement. Some insurance companies provide additional insured coverage by “schedule” or “endorsement” where the additional insured is specifically named in the declarations page or on the face of the endorsement. Whether a contractor is named as an additional insured in a blanket additional insured endorsement or by schedule, there are several things that an attorney can do to insure that the contractor will be provided with the insurance coverage that he desires.

Because of the significant differences in the various additional insured endorsements used by the insurance industry, the additional insured provision in your client’s contract should specifically state what type of insurance is required. If your client wants to be covered for claims arising out of a subcontractor’s work after the subcontractor has completed the job, the additional insured provision should explicitly state that the insurance coverage must apply to “ongoing operations” and “completed operations.” Many additional insured endorsements terminate coverage for the additional insured the moment the named insured’s work for the additional insured is completed or put to use. The failure to specify that the coverage must apply to completed operations may result in your client being left without the benefit of additional insured coverage immediately upon the subcontractor’s completion of his work. Further, the additional insured provision should indicate that the additional insured coverage is to be “primary and noncontributory.” Many additional insured endorsements provide that the coverage provided to the additional insured is excess over the additional insured’s own coverage unless the contractual agreement requires that it be primary and noncontributory. Thus, unless it is specified in the construction contract that the additional insured coverage is primary and noncontributory, the additional insured coverage may not provide any coverage at all to a contractor until the contractor’s own coverage is exhausted. An additional insured provision in a construction contract should also specify the limits of the insurance to be provided. Otherwise, the available limits under the subcontractor’s policy may be far too low for the risk that will be inherent in the task to be completed. Keep in mind that the inclusion of an additional insured on a policy does not increase the limits. If there is an occurrence, the limits shown on the declaration page must be shared by the named insured and any additional insureds.

Once a proper additional insured provision has been placed in the construction contract and agreed upon by the parties, the next step is insuring that the parties adhere to the terms of the contract. The most common way that owners and general contractors insure that their subcontractors are adhering to the insurance requirements in the policy is through collection of a certificate of insurance. A certificate of insurance should be obtained before allowing the subcontractor to begin work on the project. The certificate should be carefully reviewed to insure that the dates of the respective policies cover the anticipated construction dates, the policies have adequate limits, and there is some indication that the additional insured coverage comports with the requirements of the policy (i.e., includes completed operations coverage, is primary and noncontributory, etc.) If the subcontractor is allowed to start work without providing a certificate of insurance or after providing a certificate of insurance that shows improper coverage, the obligations in the construction contract related to additional insured coverage may be waived.

Whenever possible, the actual insurance policy of the subcontractor or the additional insured endorsement should be obtained before the start of the work because certificates of insurance do not actually provide any coverage. For example, a certificate of insurance that shows an entity as an additional insured will not provide additional insured status to the entity if the insurance policy does not list the entity as an additional insured. See TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Washington, 276 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2002). The ACORD 25 form, a standard certificate of insurance form used by insurance agencies, was amended in 2009 to include the following disclaimer near the top of the form:

This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies below. This certificate of insurance does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder.

Practically speaking, it may be difficult to obtain insurance policies from every subcontractor for every construction job. The receipt and careful review of the certificate of insurance is the next best thing. However, for especially large jobs, ask to see the additional insured endorsement in the insured’s policy before allowing the subcontractor to begin work.

Finally, take a moment to think about the type of work that your client is performing and whether his work will be covered under the subcontractor’s policy. For example, if your client performs architectural or design work, being named as an additional insured on a commercial general liability policy is unlikely to provide your client with any protection because of the professional liability exclusion found in most commercial general liability policies. If your client provides, “professional services,” you must insure that any policy providing additional insured coverage contains an endorsement for professional liability coverage.

The often unpredictable liability of general contractors coupled with the tough economic times that many contractors are now facing makes effective indemnity and additional insured provisions a critical part of any contractor’s construction contract. As any attorney who has tried to sort out the risk transfer obligations in a construction contract after an event triggering liability has occurred can attest, more often than not, there is significant confusion about the parties’ rights and obligations. The last thing that a client wants to hear following an accident is that the language in his contract that he thought would protect him is meaningless. Following the principles in this article is a good start to drafting effective risk transfer provisions that will provide your client with the protection he seeks in the event of an accident.

____________

Mr. Wooton is an associate in the Indianapolis firm of Lewis Wagner and is a member of the DTCI. The opinions in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT