(a) 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 with a building,
structure, highway, road, appurtenance, or appliance, pursuant to which contract or
agreement the promisee or the promisee’s independent contractors, agents, or employees
has hired the promisor to perform work, purporting to indemnify the promisee, the
promisee’s independent contractors, agents, employees, or indemnitees against liability
for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property proximately
caused by or resulting from the negligence of the promisee, the promisee’s independent
contractors, agents, employees, or indemnitees, is against public policy and is void;
provided that this section shall not affect the validity of any insurance contract,
worker’s compensation agreement, or an agreement issued by an insurer.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any person from purchasing insurance for his
or her own protection or from purchasing a construction bond.
Notes of Decisions
Rodrigues v. DePasquale Bldg. & Realty Co., 926 A.2d 616 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 10× “’s motion for summary judgment, the hearing justice ruled that, although the provision purporting to indemnify DePasquale Bldg, for its own negligence was void pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 6-34-1, 2 the contract itself was enforceable.”
A.F. Lusi Constr., Inc. v. Peerless Ins., 847 A.2d 254 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 8× “In addition, Peerless asserts that the provisions of G.L. 1956 § 6-34-1 1 apply to bar the enforce *258 ment of any agreements in which a subcontractor, such as Pasquazzi, agrees to indemnify a general contractor, such as Lusi, against third-party claims arising from the general…”
A & B Constr., Inc. v. Atlas Roofing & Skylight Co., 867 F. Supp. 100 (D.R.I. 1994).
· cites it 8× “R.I.Gen.Laws § 6-34-1. If Atlas was wholly at fault, then A & B was never legally obligated to discharge any obligation to Silva and cannot seek indemnity from Atlas.”
Cosentino v. A.F. Lusi Constr. Co., 485 A.2d 105 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 8× “*107 The controversy now before us relates to Lusi’s appeal from the grant by a Superior Court justice of Otis’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Lusi had no right of contribution from Otis as an alleged joint tortfeasor and that Lusi’s claim for indemnification…”
Ferguson v. Marshall Contractors, Inc., 707 A.2d 660 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 2× “G.L. 1956 § 6-34-1. But this court has held that the statute does not bar a party from agreeing to indemnify another party for the negligence of the indemnitor or its subcontractors.”
Vaccaro v. E.W. Burman, Inc., 484 A.2d 880 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 6-34-1, a question would arise as to the validity of an indemnification clause of the type contained in this subcontract.”
Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp. v. Ultimate Parking, 61 F.4th 215 (1st Cir. 2023).
“We think it likely that Rhode Island courts would closely scrutinize similar indemnity provisions in other commercial contexts and would be less strict with provisions, like the one at issue here, that do not indemnify a party for its own negligence.”
Rush v. Norfolk Elec. Co., 874 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007).
“Modem Continental’s attack on the judge’s mling in this regard is based entirely on its contention that he relied improperly on an inapplicable Rhode Island statute, see R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-34-1 (2006), that prohibits an indemnitee from obtaining indemnification for its own…”
James v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 636 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Ariz. 2007).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-34-1. The contractual provision at issue in Cosimini was facially invalid because it purported to hold a subcontractor fully responsible for indemnification even when the negligence of both the general contractor, the indemnitee, and the subcontractor, the…”
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.