(a) Any covenant, promise, agreement or understanding entered into in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any building, structure or appurtenances thereto including moving, demolition and excavating connected therewith, that purports to indemnify or hold harmless the promisee against liability for damage arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the negligence of such promisee, such promisee's agents or employees, is against public policy and void, provided this section shall not affect the validity of any insurance contract, workers' compensation agreement or other agreement issued by a licensed insurer.
(b) The provisions of this section shall apply to covenants, promises, agreements or understandings entered into on or after the thirtieth day next succeeding October 1, 1977.
(P.A. 77-356; P.A. 79-376, S. 73; P.A. 01-155, S. 2.)
History: P.A. 79-376 substituted “workers' compensation” for “workmen's compensation”; P.A. 01-155 amended Subsec. (a) by substituting “negligence” for “sole negligence” and by making a technical change for purposes of gender neutrality.
Legislature, in specifically outlawing hold harmless agreements in the construction industry, showed intention that such a practice not be deemed against public policy in other situations; had legislature intended to outlaw all such provisions, it could have said so. 1 CA 54. Waiver of subrogation provision in contract was not an agreement to hold harmless or to indemnify. 77 CA 167.
Enforcing an “additional insured” clause does not violate the provisions of section. 50 CS 563.
Sec. 52-572l. Strict tort liability, contributory negligence and comparative negligence not bar to recovery. In causes of action based on strict tort liability, contributory negligence or comparative negligence shall not be a bar to recovery. The provisions of this section shall apply to all actions pending on or brought after June 7, 1977, claiming strict tort liability notwithstanding the date on which the cause of action accrued. Nothing in this section shall be construed as barring the defense of misuse of the product or the defense of knowingly using the product in a defective condition in an action based on strict tort liability.
(P.A. 77-335, S. 1, 2.)
Cited. 203 C. 594; 207 C. 575; 212 C. 509; 229 C. 500.
Cited. 2 CA 308; 30 CA 664; 45 CA 324.
Cited. 41 CS 179.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case:
Sandella v. Dick Corp., 729 A.2d 813 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
Sandella v. Dick Corp., 729 A.2d 813 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 13× “2 Maguire claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to set aside the jury’s verdict and to render a directed verdict in its favor, (2) failed to find, as a matter of law, that Metcalf & Eddy was not entitled to indemnification and (3) failed to find, as a matter of law,…”
Albany Ins. v. United Alarm Servs., Inc., 194 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2002).
· cites it 10× “Albany relies on Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572k, which provides, in pertinent part: Any covenant, promise, agreement or understanding entered into in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any…”
Coale v. Metro-North R.R., 34 F. Supp. 3d 206 (D. Conn. 2014).
· cites it 14× “Metro-North argues that the indemnification provision is void as a matter of public policy pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572k, and as a result, it cannot be found in breach of a contractual term which is itself invalid.”
Burkle v. Car & Truck Leasing Co., 467 A.2d 1255 (Conn. App. Ct. 1983).
· cites it 4× “The intervening plaintiff also argues that the provision in question is void as against public policy in that it jeopardizes the safety of the public, citing General Statutes § 52-572k 2 as authority.”
Costin v. Bhandari Constructors & Consultants, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D. Conn. 2003).
· cites it 10× “89] In support of its motion for summary judgment, Tip Top first argues that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572k, which prohibits “hold-harmless” clauses in *169 construction contracts under certain circumstances, bars the indemnification claims brought by USF & G, Bhandari,…”
Royal Indem. Co. v. Terra Firma, Inc., 948 A.2d 1101 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Royal Indemnity and United States Fire argue that their position is buttressed by the policy expressed in General Statutes § 52-572k, which prohibits language in construction contracts that requires a subcontractor to indemnify a general contractor for the contractor’s own…”
Guild v. Exxon Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Conn. 1999).
· cites it 5× “Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-572k Plaintiffs argue that Conn.”
Precision Trenchless, LLC v. Saertex multiCom LP (D. Conn. 2021).
· cites it 12× “Section 52-572k Section 52-572k provides in relevant part: Any covenant, promise, agreement or understanding entered into in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any building, structure or…”
Brazao v. Pleasant Valley Apts., LLC (D. Conn. 2023).
· cites it 7× “Indemnity Provision’s Validity Under § 52-572k UBS argues that the indemnity provision of the Subcontractor Agreement—a portion of which requires UBS to indemnify 84 Lumber for 84 Lumber’s own negligence—is void under § 52-572k.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572k(a) — 6 cases
Costin v. Bhandari Constructors & Consultants, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D. Conn. 2003).
“89] In support of its motion for summary judgment, Tip Top first argues that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572k, which prohibits “hold-harmless” clauses in *169 construction contracts under certain circumstances, bars the indemnification claims brought by USF & G, Bhandari,…”
Coale v. Metro-North R.R., 34 F. Supp. 3d 206 (D. Conn. 2014).
“Metro-North argues that the indemnification provision is void as a matter of public policy pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572k, and as a result, it cannot be found in breach of a contractual term which is itself invalid.”
Albany Ins. v. United Alarm Servs., Inc., 194 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2002).
“Albany relies on Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572k, which provides, in pertinent part: Any covenant, promise, agreement or understanding entered into in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any…”
Guild v. Exxon Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Conn. 1999).
“Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-572k Plaintiffs argue that Conn.”
Precision Trenchless, LLC v. Saertex multiCom LP (D. Conn. 2021).
“Section 52-572k Section 52-572k provides in relevant part: Any covenant, promise, agreement or understanding entered into in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any building, structure or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.