Alabama’s common law and judicial decisions prohibit indemnification for intentional
misconduct or criminal actions.
Alaska bars indemnification for the sole negligence or misconduct by the indemnitee in §45.45.900.
Arizona’s § 34-226 bars indemnification for the negligence of the indemnitee in all public
construction and design contracts. § 32-1159 bars indemnification for the sole, but not the concurrent, negligence of the indemnitee in all private construction and design contracts. Arkansas permits indemnification with virtually no restrictions.
California bars indemnification for the indemnitee’s willful misconduct and/or sole, not
concurrent, negligence or for design professionals. (Civ. Code § 2782). Additionally, unlike most states, section 3864 of the California Labor code specifically permits indemnification for
workers’ compensation purposes.
Colorado has few restrictions on indemnification, but does prohibit agreements regarding indemnification in contracts with public entities (§ 13-50.5-102).
Connecticut prohibits indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence for construction
contracts. There is no mention of design professionals. (Gen. Stat. § 52-572k).
Delaware’s restrictive laws generally bar indemnity, including where the indemnitee is
negligent, including design professionals (Title 6, § 2704).
The District of Columbia’s case law generally permits indemnification.
Florida’s codes bar certain forms of indemnification such as for the indemnitee’s gross
negligence or intentional conduct and for the actions of a design professional (§ 725.08) and in construction contracts in general (§ 725.06).
Georgia’s § 13–8-2 bars indemnification for indemnitee’s sole negligence.
Hawaii’s § 431: 10-222 bars indemnification for indemnitee’s sole, not concurrent, negligence
or intentional misconduct.
Idaho Code § 29.114 bars indemnification for indemnitee’s sole negligence.
Illinois bars indemnification for negligence (740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 35/1).
Indiana bars indemnification for the indemnitee’s or design professionals’ sole, not concurrent,
negligence or intentional conduct (§§ 26-2-5-1,-2).
Iowa case law allows indemnification where the agreement is clear and unequivocal. Kansas case law allows indemnification where the agreement is clear and unequivocal. Kentucky case law allows indemnification where the agreement is clear and unequivocal.
Louisiana’s codes bar indemnification on public projects [§ 38:2216(G)].
Maine case law allows indemnification where the agreement is clear and unequivocal.
Maryland bars indemnification for the indemnitee’s sole negligence (Ch & Jud. Prog. Code §
5-401).
Massachusetts law bars indemnification by subcontractors (Ch. 149 § 29c).
Michigan bars indemnification for indemnitee’s sole negligence (§ 691.991) and prohibits or
vitiates any contractual requirement to name indemnitee as Additional Insured. (§ 26.1146).
Minnesota bars indemnification for indemnitee’s negligence (§ 337.02) but expressly permits
additional insured agreements (§§ 337.01; 337.05).
Mississippi bars indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence (§ 31-5-41).
Missouri has specific regulations for when indemnification can occur and bars indemnification unless it is considered at the time of contracting. However, Missouri expressly prohibits indemnification in all construction contracts, both public and private and expressly permits additional insured agreements (§ 434.100).
Montana bars indemnification for indemnitee’s '6Eegligence in all construction contracts.
(Mont. Rev. Code Ann. § 28-2-2111).
Nebraska prohibits indemnification for indemnitee’s negligence. (§ 25-21.187(1)).
Nevada has no statutory regulation of anti-indemnity statutes.
New Hampshire case law permits indemnification, however, § 338-A:1 prohibits indemnification of design professionals.
New Jersey prohibits indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence, including the negligence
of design professionals (§ 2A:40A-2) but does not have a requirement relating to additional insured agreements.
New Mexico prohibits indemnification for an indemnitee’s negligence or for the negligence of a
design professional (§ 56-7-1) .
New York prohibits indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence (Gen. Oblig. Law §
5-322.1) and prohibits indemnification in construction contracts and for the negligence of the
design professional (Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-324) and workers’ compensation regulations limit the
application of implied indemnity theory.
North Carolina prohibits indemnification under § 22B-1.
North Dakota bars indemnification for design professionals under § 9-08-02.1. Ohio prohibits indemnification under § 2305.31 but Ohio Courts have yet to agree on effectiveness of additional insured agreements.
Oklahoma permits indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence. (Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 15, §
422).
Oregon bars indemnification under § 30.140. However, a bar on indemnification contained
within workers’ compensation regulations may be waived by the employment contract and §
30.140(2) permits additional insured agreements.
Pennsylvania bars indemnification for the design professional’s sole negligence under Title 68, §
491. Further, case law permits indemnification where the intent of the parties is clear and
unambiguous and workers’ compensation regulations permit the waiver of the general bar on
indemnification.
Rhode Island prohibits indemnification under § 6-34-1.
South Carolina prohibits indemnification for indemnitee’s sole negligence under § 32-2-10.
South Dakota prohibits indemnification under § 56-3-18 and separately bars indemnification of
the design professional for the indemnitee’s sole, not concurrent, negligence under § 56-3-16. Tennessee prohibits indemnification for the indemnitee’s sole negligence under § 62-6-123. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 130.001-005 bars indemnification for the indemnitee’s
negligence in all construction-related and design contracts. Tex. Gov. Code § 2252.902(b) bars
indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence in all contracts relating to construction of public buildings. Tex. Gov. Code § 2252.902©) permits indemnification for the indemnitee’s
negligence in contracts for construction to state public buildings, with liability arising from the
injury to an indemnitor’s employee.
Utah prohibits indemnification for the indemnitee’s sole, not concurrent, negligence under §
13-8-1.
Vermont case law permits indemnification where the parties’ intent is clear and unambiguous in
their agreement.
Virginia bars indemnification under § 11-4.1 and specifically bars indemnification for a design
professional’s sole, not concurrent negligence under § 11-4.4.
Washington prohibits indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence under § 4.24.115 and state workers’ compensation regulations prohibit an agreement to indemnify, unless the
prohibition is express waived by contract between the parties.
West Virginia prohibits indemnification for the indemnitee’s sole, not concurrent, negligence
under § 55-8-14.
Wisconsin case law does allow indemnification where the intent of the parties is clear and
unambiguous at the time of agreement. However, there are workers’ compensation regulations
Wyoming currently has no statutes, published cases or regulations restricting or permitting indemnification or additional insured agreements.