Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.31 (2026)

Promisee indemnified against damage liability

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

November 19, 1975

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 489 - 111th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in, or in connection with or collateral to, a contract or agreement relative to the design, planning, construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of a building, structure, highway, road, appurtenance, and appliance, including moving, demolition, and excavating connected therewith, pursuant to which contract or agreement the promisee, or its independent contractors, agents or employees has hired the promisor to perform work, purporting to indemnify the promisee, its independent contractors, agents, employees, or indemnitees against liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property initiated or proximately caused by or resulting from the negligence of the promisee, its independent contractors, agents, employees, or indemnitees is against public policy and is void. Nothing in this section shall prohibit any person from purchasing insurance from an insurance company authorized to do business in the state of Ohio for his own protection or from purchasing a construction bond.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Stickovich v. City of Cleveland, 757 N.E.2d 50 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stickovich v. City of Cleveland, 757 N.E.2d 50 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 54× “) It argues that the trial court improperly determined that the additional-insured endorsement covered Cleveland’s own negligence in violation of R.C. 2305.31. Standard principles governing insurance law and motions for summary judgment warrant affirming the trial court’s…”

Waddell v. Ltv Steel Co., 706 N.E.2d 363 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 43× “We affirm based upon R.C. 2305.31 and related case law, which void indemnity and contribution clauses contained in a contract or agreement relative to the maintenance of a building or structure.”

Brzeczek v. Stand. Oil Co., 447 N.E.2d 760 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 17× “In reaching this determination, the trial court addressed the application of R.C. 2305.31 to the contract between Standard Oil and Tulsa Tank.”

Kendall v. U.S. Dismantling Co., 485 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 8× “I The first issue presented in this appeal is whether R.C. 2305.31 prohibits only those indemnity agreements in construction-related contracts whereby the promisor agrees to indemnify the promisee for damages caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the promisee.”

Davis v. Ltv Steel Co., 716 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 11× “he following: (1) Motorists had no contractual duty to defend LTV because the liability, if any, of LTV did not arise out of the operations of Shafer; (2) LTV was not entitled to coverage as an additional insured under the policy *736 issued by Motorists to Shafer; and (3) the…”

Buckeye Union Ins. v. Zavarella Bros. Constr. Co., 699 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “The primary question in this case is whether an agreement by a construction subcontractor to name its general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractor’s general commercial insurance policy constitutes an indemnity agreement prohibited by R.C. 2305.31. The trial…”

Lamb v. Armco, Inc., 518 N.E.2d 53 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 20× “On December 3, 1985, Armco moved for judgment on the pleadings asking the court to find that Armco had a valid indemnity agreement with Fairbanks covering Lamb’s injuries, and that Fairbanks’ claim that the in *289 demnity agreement was invalid based on R.C. 2305.31 was…”

Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1567 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 3× “Nothing in this division shall be construed as altering the rights devolved under sections 2305.31 and 4123.82 of the Revised Code as those rights existed prior to September 17, 1996.”

Coulter v. Dayton Power Light Co., 731 N.E.2d 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 14× “Second, DP&L claims that the trial court erred in relying upon R.C. 2305.31 in concluding that the contractual indemnification provision was against public policy.”

Kemmeter v. McDaniel Backhoe Serv., 732 N.E.2d 385 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 7× “The Statute R.C. 2305.31 provides: “A[n] * * * agreement * * * in connection with or collateral to, a contract or agreement relative to the * * * construction * * * of a building * * *, pursuant to which contract or agreement the promisee * * * has hired the promisor to perform…”

Hopkins v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 484 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 16× “Babcock & Wilcox, sought summary judgment upon the cross-claim of the city on the additional ground that the save-harmless provision of the contract between them is rendered void by R.C. 2305.31. The trial court granted Bab-cock & Wilcox’s motion with respect to Hopkins and the…”

Kemmeter v. McDaniel Backhoe Serv., 2000 Ohio 209 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 11× “] Contracts—Hold harmless provision in contract is enforceable if the clause as applied will not result in indemnification of a party’s own negligence— R.C. 2305.31, construed and applied. (No.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

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.