-3
Hot take: That boilerplate indemnification clause is a trap in most cases
I got burned bad on a contract last year in Austin. A subcontractor damaged a pipe and flood ruined a bunch of drywall. The indemnification clause in my contract was super broad - it said I had to cover any claim "arising from" their work. Their lawyer argued that since the pipe was old and corroded, the damage was partly my fault for not inspecting it before they started. Turns out that broad language meant I had to pay $2,800 of the $4,500 repair cost even though I didn't touch a thing. I had a buddy in Dallas who says he always limits indemnification to "caused by the subcontractor's negligence" and nothing beyond. That single word change would have saved me. So which side are you on - broad indemnity or strictly tied to negligence?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
shane17011d ago
Totally agree with your buddy, that "caused by" language is the way to go. Broad indemnity like you had is basically a blank check for whoever wrote it.
10