Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 26-2-5-1 (2026)
"Construction or design contract"; indemnity agreements against public policy as void and unenforceable; exceptions
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this section, "construction or design contract" includes a design-build contract under which all of the following for the same project are included:
(1) Architectural, engineering, and related design services.
(2) Labor, materials, and other construction services.
(b) All provisions, clauses, covenants, or agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction or design contract, except those pertaining to highway contracts, which purport to indemnify the promisee against liability for:
(1) death or bodily injury to persons;
(2) injury to property;
(3) design defects; or
(4) any other loss, damage, or expense arising under subdivision (1), (2), or (3);
from sole negligence or willful misconduct of the promisee are against public policy and are void and unenforceable. Sole negligence does not include vicarious liability, imputed negligence, or assumption of a nondelegable duty.
Formerly: Acts 1975, P.L.276, SEC.1. As amended by P.L.65-2019, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: Progressive Constr. & Eng'g Co. v. Indiana & Michigan Elec. Co., 533 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).
Progressive Constr. & Eng'g Co. v. Indiana & Michigan Elec. Co., 533 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “Progressive exerts some effort in its appellate brief to persuade this court that I.C. § 26-2-5-1 is applicable to the present factual situation.”
Moore Heating & Plumbing, Inc. v. Huber, 583 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “Further, Moore claimed that Ind. Code 26-2-5-1 rendered the indemnification clause invalid.”
Fresh Cut, Inc. v. Fazli, 650 N.E.2d 1126 (Ind. 1995). “, certain indemnification clauses in construction contracts are prohibited by Indiana Code § 26-2-5-1 (1993). [4] See note 1, supra.”
Straub v. B.M.T. Ex Rel. Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994). “, Ind. Code Ann. § 26-2-5-1 (West Supp. 1994) (rendering void provisions which indemnify a promisee against liability for negligence by promisee or his or her independent contractors).”
Indianapolis Power & Light Co. v. Brad Snodgrass, Inc., 578 N.E.2d 669 (Ind. 1991). “987 , except as to the sole negli-genee of the indemnitee, Ind.Code § 26-2-5-1. 1 Thus IPL and House may, by suffi *671 cient express agreement, provide for indemnification as to liabilities imposed on them because of the sole negligence of Snodgrass or the concurrent negligence…”
Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins, 443 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). “See Ind.Code § 26-2-5-1 (1982). However, that section does not effect agreements entered into prior to July 1, 1975, and so is of no consequence in the instant case.”
Cont'l Basketball Ass'n v. Ellenstein Enter., Inc., 669 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. 1996). “" Ind.Code § 26-2-5-1 declares that "[alll provisions, clauses, covenants, or agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction or design contract except those pertaining to highway contracts, which purport to indemnify the promisee against liability for: (1)…”
Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Culligan Fyrprotexion, Inc., 437 N.E.2d 1360 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “” In its answer to Count I, Culligan invoked Ind.Code 26-2-5-1 (1976) which was in effect at all times relevant and reads as follows: “All provisions, clauses, covenants, or agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction or design contract except those…”
LTV Steel Co. v. Nw. Eng'g & Constr., Inc., 845 F. Supp. 1295 (N.D. Ind. 1994). “’ Ind.Code Ann. § 26-2-5-1 (West 1980 & Supp.”
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Sercon Corp., 654 N.E.2d 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “CODE § 26-2-5-1 (1982 Ed.). The statute provides: "Indemnity agreements against public policy as void and unenforceable; exception See.”
Exide Corp. v. Millwright Riggers, Inc., 727 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “g that the indemnity provision is unenforceable due to its failure to clearly state that the contractors were required to indemnify Exide against its own negligence, we need not address Exide’s arguments that the indemnity provision is valid because it is not limited to claims…”
Alexander v. City of Shelbyville, 575 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “City also is correct that I.C. § 26-2-5-1 is not applicable. I.C. § 26-2-5-1 specifies that provisions indemnifying the promisee against liability for the sole negligence of the promisee or his independent contractors are void.”
— Ind. Code § 26-2-5-1(4) — 1 case
Progressive Constr. & Eng'g Co. v. Indiana & Michigan Elec. Co., 533 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “Progressive exerts some effort in its appellate brief to persuade this court that I.C. § 26-2-5-1 is applicable to the present factual situation.”
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.