Tex. Codes » Insurance Code · TITLE 2. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE · SUBTITLE C. PROGRAMS AFFECTING MULTIPLE LINES OF INSURANCE · CHAPTER 151. CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE PROGRAMS
Texas Codes

Tex. Ins. Code § 151.102 (2026)

Agreement Void And Unenforceable

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 151.102. AGREEMENT VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE. Except as provided by Section 151.103, a provision in a construction contract, or in an agreement collateral to or affecting a construction contract, is void and unenforceable as against public policy to the extent that it requires an indemnitor to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend a party, including a third party, against a claim caused by the negligence or fault, the breach or violation of a statute, ordinance, governmental regulation, standard, or rule, or the breach of contract of the indemnitee, its agent or employee, or any third party under the control or supervision of the indemnitee, other than the indemnitor or its agent, employee, or subcontractor of any tier.

Added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1292 (H.B. 2093), Sec. 1, eff. January 1, 2012.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Maxim Crane Works v. Zurich Amer Ins, 11 F.4th 345 (5th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maxim Crane Works v. Zurich Amer Ins, 11 F.4th 345 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “But the legal issue presented in this case is simply this: Who counts as an “employee” under the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (“TAIA”)? See Tex. Ins. Code §§ 151.102, 151.103. Specifically, if a person is employed by a general contractor, is that person also considered an Case:…”
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 731 (S.D. Tex. 2019). “Unless an exception applies, the Statute voids the additional-insured coverage because that coverage requires the Berkel Policy to cover Maxim "against a claim caused by [Maxim's] negligence or fault.”
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Ann Brown D/B/A Jay Constr. (Tex. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 151.102. The statute expressly applies to both an obligation to indemnify and an obligation to defend.”
Signature Indus. Servs., LLC & Jeffry Ogden v. Int'l Paper Co. (Tex. 2022). · cites it 2× “” TEX. INS. CODE § 151.102 (emphasis added).”
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (Tex. 2022). · cites it 2× “See TEX. INS. CODE § 151.102. But an exception permits the indemnitor to indemnify or insure the indemnitee against a claim for the bodily injury or death of the indemnitor’s employee, agent, or subcontractor.”
Venable's Constr., Inc v. Aspen Midstream, LLC (2025). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Ins. Code § 151.102 (“Except as provided by Section 151.”
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Berkel & Co. Contractors, Inc. (Tex. App. 2016). “Tex. Ins. Code § 151.102. 7 Berkel contends that because it maintained worker’s compensation insurance, it is immune from liability from Lee’s claims, even though Lee was not Berkel’s employee.”
Maxim Crane Works v. Zurich Amer Ins (5th Cir. 2022). “Per Curiam:* The parties to this insurance coverage dispute stipulate to all relevant facts and agree that the outcome turns on a single question of statutory interpretation: Who counts as an “employee” under the Texas Anti- Indemnity Act? See Tex. Ins. Code §§ 151.102, 151.103.…”
The Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Colony Ins. Co. (W.D. Ark. 2023). “Tex. Ins. Code § 151.102 (emphasis added).”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2022). “” Tex. Ins. Code § 151.102 (2012). For such contracts, a provision .”
Allied World Assurance Co. (U.S.) Inc., as Subrogee of Phillips & Jordan, Inc., Archer W. Constr., LLC & North Texas Mun. Water Dist. v. Acadia Ins. Co. (E.D. Tex. 2024). “The Magistrate Judge quoted the Texas Supreme Court’s analysis of Texas Insurance Code Section 151.102 for the proposition that “[the TCAIA] prohibits Entity A from requiring Entity B to indemnify Entity A against the consequences of the negligence of Entity A, Entity A’s agent,…”
The Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Knife River Corp. South (S.D. Tex. 2023). “3d at 740 (citing Tex. Ins. Code §§ 151.102 and 104). Therefore, in this case, the TAIA prohibits additional-insured coverage to the extent that Phoenix may be required to defend Knife River in claims caused by Knife River’s—as opposed to PMI’s—alleged wrongdoing.”
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.