A general contractor may enforce an indemnification clause against its subcontractor for the damages attributable to that subcontractor's negligence. 

            In Brooks v. Judlau Contr., Inc., 2008 N.E.2d 549 (N.Y. 2008), the Court of Appeals of New York interpreted a New York statute that stated, in essence, that a promise related to a construction contract meant to hold the promisee (the one to whom the promise is being made) not liable for injuries resulting from the promisee's or the promisee's agents' negligence was against public policy. 

            An ironworker was injured when he grabbed onto a perimeter safety cable installed by the general contractor and the cable came lose causing the worker to fall 18 feet to the pavement below. The worker sued the contractor, and the contractor brought a third-party claim against the subcontractor seeking indemnification for the damages attributable to the subcontractor's negligence.

            The agreement between the subcontractor and contractor contained a provision that, according to the subcontractor, violated the New York statute because it purported to relieve the contractor of liability. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It noted that the contract provision did not violate the statute because the contractor only sought indemnification for another's negligence, not for contractor's own fault. The subcontractor, therefore, was liable to the contractor for any damages the contractor may have to pay for that did not result from the contractor's negligence but from the negligence of the subcontractor. 

            See Section 33-2-10 of the South Carolina Code of Laws Annotated which, like the New York statute, renders unenforceable and against public policy any attempts of avoiding liability for one own's negligence.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.