Most contracts in the construction industry supply chain require the “downstream” project participant to indemnify those “upstream” against a spectrum of losses or claims relating to the project, write Shawn M. Doorhy and Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr. on the website of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

“Upstream participants, such as owners and general contractors, naturally seek the broadest indemnity available under the circumstances. It is not uncommon for owners and general contractors to draft broad indemnity agreements seeking protection from loss due to the indemnitee’s own direct fault,” they write. “Whether this can be successfully accomplished depends on a number of factors, including the specific language used and the law of the applicable jurisdiction.”

They add that — because indemnity agreements often are strictly construed against the party seeking indemnification — careful drafting is especially important.

Read the article.

An article in Kane Russell Coleman & Logan’s new Energy Law Today blog reports on a case before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that raises the question: “When will an anti-indemnity statute bar an often well-crafted legal indemnity term in a master-service agreement?”.

The case is Tetra Techs., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 15-30446.

“In Tetra, the commercial fight was between Tetra, which sought to enforce an indemnity clause against its subcontractor, Vertex Services.  Continental, Vertex’s insurer, tried to block any indemnity payment, relying, in large part, on the LOAIA,” writes Andrea (A.J.) Johnson.

“The district court held that the decommissioning of a platform in a salvage operation did not come under the LOAIA, and, thus, Tetra’s claim for indemnity was enforceable. In opposition, appellant Continental contends that the trial court too restrictively interpreted the [Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act].”

Read the article.