Will a Connecticut court enforce a clause making the subcontractor indemnify the owner or GC for the owner's or GC's own negligence?
Not in construction. Any covenant or agreement collateral to a contract for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any building, structure or appurtenances (including moving, demolition and excavating) that purports to indemnify or hold harmless the promisee against liability for bodily injury or property damage caused by or resulting from the negligence of the promisee, its agents or employees is against public policy and void (§ 52-572k(a)), without affecting insurance contracts, workers' compensation agreements or other agreements issued by a licensed insurer. Outside that statute, the Connecticut Supreme Court has said that indemnification agreements give rise to the same issues as releases and are interpreted in a similar fashion, and for releases it requires language that expressly releases a party from its own future negligence; in Hyson the release did not expressly so provide, and the summary judgment for the defendant was reversed.
The trap
§ 52-572k's text reaches indemnity against liability caused by or resulting from the negligence of the promisee, its agents or employees; it expressly does not affect any insurance contract, workers' compensation agreement or other agreement issued by a licensed insurer. The section applies to covenants entered into on or after the thirtieth day after October 1, 1977 (§ 52-572k(b)). Whether a clause is saved to the extent it covers only the indemnitor's own negligence was not established. Hyson's express-language holding was made for a release; its statement that indemnity agreements are interpreted in a similar fashion is the court's, but Hyson did not decide an indemnity case. The sentence it follows reports widespread support in other jurisdictions for 'a rule requiring that any agreement intended to exculpate a party for its own negligence state so expressly', and the sentence it is followed by cuts the other way: although in many jurisdictions a written contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify against the indemnitee's own negligence unless there is a clear expression of that intention, '[a] specific reference to negligence of the indemnitee is not always required.'
8 authorities
- statuteConn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572kenactment date not established
The words that state the rule
Any covenant, promise, agreement or understanding entered into in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any building, structure or appurtenances thereto including moving, demolition and excavating connected therewith, that purports to indemnify or hold harmless the promisee against liability for damage arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the negligence of such promisee, such promisee's agents or employees, is against public policy and void, provided this section shall not affect the validity of any insurance contract, workers' compensation agreement or other agreement issued by a licensed insurer.
- case265 Conn. 636Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc.Conn.decided 2003read it at the source ↗
The words that state the rule
Indemnification agreements give rise to the same issues and are interpreted in a similar fashion.
- case265 Conn. 636Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc.Conn.decided 2003read it at the source ↗
The words that state the rule
In keeping with the well established principle, however, that “[t]he law does not favor contract provisions which relieve a person from his own negligence”; Griffin v. Nationwide Moving & Storage Co., 187 Conn. 405, 413 , 446 A.2d 799 (1982); we conclude that the better rule is that a party cannot be released from liability for injuries resulting from its future negligence in the absence of language that expressly so provides.
- case265 Conn. 636Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc.Conn.decided 2003read it at the source ↗
The words that state the rule
There is, however, widespread support in other jurisdictions for *642 a rule requiring that any agreement intended to exculpate a party for its own negligence state so expressly.
- case265 Conn. 636Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc.Conn.decided 2003read it at the source ↗
The words that state the rule
Thus, although “[i]n many jurisdictions a written contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify against *643 the indemnitee’s own negligence unless there is a clear expression of that intention, and then the contract is strictly construed ... [a] specific reference to negligence of the indemnitee is not always required.” 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Indemnity § 20 (1995).
- statuteConn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572kenactment date not established
The words that state the rule
(b) The provisions of this section shall apply to covenants, promises, agreements or understandings entered into on or after the thirtieth day next succeeding October 1, 1977.
- case265 Conn. 636Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc.Conn.decided 2003read it at the source ↗
The words that state the rule
Because the release signed by the plaintiff in the present case did not expressly provide that, by signing it, she released the defendant from liability for damages resulting from its negligence, the trial court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
- case265 Conn. 636Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc.Conn.decided 2003read it at the source ↗
The words that state the rule
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.
“Defective” means that reading found something to correct. What you are reading is the rule as it stands after that reading.