Hold Harmless Agreement New York

O., at 657; Hogeland vs. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., A.O.A., at 161. “An agreement for insurance is not a compensation or indemnification agreement and the distinction between the two is well recognized (see Roblee v Corning Community Coll., 134 A.D.2d 803, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 803; Grant vs. United States, 271 F.2d 651, 655-656 [2d Cir]). While the nature of a compensation agreement is to exempt the promise of liability, an agreement on the acquisition of insurance explicitly anticipates the “continued liability” of the promise of its own negligence, for which the promising is required to take out insurance (Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., a.a., 161; see also the Board of Educ. v Valden Assocs., a. a.o.a., at 657; 4 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 2261). Make no mistake; The difference between a harmless blocking clause and one that requires the other party to take out additional insurance on your behalf can be huge. In some cases, if a dispute drops the pike, it may mean the difference between protection under New York law and keeping the bag, especially when your indemnification clause is legally unenforceable. A Hold Harmless agreement is a clause that usually appears in construction contracts to release a party from the consequences or commitments related to the action of the other parties. Subcontractors generally offer secure agreements to contractors, developers or other related professionals who insure themselves against all work performed by the subcontractor.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.