Sec. 151.104. UNENFORCEABLE ADDITIONAL INSURANCE PROVISION. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a provision in a construction contract that requires the purchase of additional insured coverage, or any coverage endorsement, or provision within an insurance policy providing additional insured coverage, is void and unenforceable to the extent that it requires or provides coverage the scope of which is prohibited under this subchapter for an agreement to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend.
(b) This section does not apply to a provision in an insurance policy, or an endorsement to an insurance policy, issued under a consolidated insurance program to the extent that the provision or endorsement lists, adds, or deletes named insureds to the policy.
Added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1292 (H.B. 2093), Sec. 1, eff. January 1, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
The Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Colony Ins. Co. (W.D. Ark. 2023).
“First, as to the merits of Continental’s argument: as can clearly be seen in the italicized language from Tex. Ins. Code § 151.104(a) above, the TAIA expressly invalidates “a .”
Knife River Corp. - South v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (N.D. Tex. 2022).
“” Tex. Ins. Code Ann. § 151.104 (a).4 So, Texas law: [P]rohibits additional-insured coverage when the insurance contract requires the insuring party to provide coverage of a claim caused by the Additional Insured’s ‘negligence or fault, the breach or violation of a statute,…”
— Tex. Ins. Code § 151.104(a) — 1 case
The Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Colony Ins. Co. (W.D. Ark. 2023).
“First, as to the merits of Continental’s argument: as can clearly be seen in the italicized language from Tex. Ins. Code § 151.104(a) above, the TAIA expressly invalidates “a .”
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.