Texas Codes

Tex. Ins. Code § 151.105 (2026)

Exclusions

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

Sec. 151.105. EXCLUSIONS. This subchapter does not affect:

(1) an insurance policy, including a policy issued under an owner-controlled or owner-sponsored consolidated insurance program or a contractor-controlled or contractor-sponsored consolidated insurance program, except as provided by Section 151.104;

(2) a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of an indemnity obligation, including an indemnity obligation in a construction contract under a construction project for which insurance is provided under a consolidated insurance program;

(3) indemnity provisions contained in loan and financing documents, other than construction contracts to which the contractor and owner's lender are parties as provided under Section 151.001(5);

(4) general agreements of indemnity required by sureties as a condition of execution of bonds for construction contracts;

(5) the benefits and protections under the workers' compensation laws of this state;

(6) the benefits or protections under the governmental immunity laws of this state;

(7) agreements subject to Chapter 127, Civil Practice and Remedies Code;

(8) a license agreement between a railroad company and a person that permits the person to enter the railroad company's property as an accommodation to the person for work under a construction contract that does not primarily benefit the railroad company;

(9) an indemnity provision pertaining to a claim based upon copyright infringement;

(10) an indemnity provision in a construction contract, or in an agreement collateral to or affecting a construction contract, pertaining to:

(A) a single family house, townhouse, duplex, or land development directly related thereto; or

(B) a public works project of a municipality; or

(11) a joint defense agreement entered into after a claim is made.

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

SUBCHAPTER D. NONWAIVER


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2022 · leading case: Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 731 (S.D. Tex. 2019).
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 731 (S.D. Tex. 2019). · cites it 4× “(Docket Entry No. 20 at 13). Maxim argues that because Berkel "has been deemed to be the functional equivalent of Lee's employer," the Berkel Policy covers Maxim's defense against, and settlement with, Lee.”
Maxim Crane Works v. Zurich Amer Ins, 11 F.4th 345 (5th Cir. 2021). “Tex. Ins. Code § 151.105(5). The district court sided with Zurich, holding that “the statutory language and the Texas cases interpreting [the TWCA] show that the terms ‘coemployer’ and ‘coemployee’ are not interchangeable and that the court cannot deem Berkel to be Lee’s…”
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (Tex. 2022). · cites it 2× “See TEX. INS. CODE § 151.105. Here, the jury considering the Lees’ claims for personal injury found Maxim negligent and partially responsible for Lee’s harm.”
— Tex. Ins. Code § 151.105(5) — 3 cases
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 731 (S.D. Tex. 2019). “(Docket Entry No. 20 at 13). Maxim argues that because Berkel "has been deemed to be the functional equivalent of Lee's employer," the Berkel Policy covers Maxim's defense against, and settlement with, Lee.”
Maxim Crane Works v. Zurich Amer Ins, 11 F.4th 345 (5th Cir. 2021). “Tex. Ins. Code § 151.105(5). The district court sided with Zurich, holding that “the statutory language and the Texas cases interpreting [the TWCA] show that the terms ‘coemployer’ and ‘coemployee’ are not interchangeable and that the court cannot deem Berkel to be Lee’s…”
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (Tex. 2022). “See TEX. INS. CODE § 151.105. Here, the jury considering the Lees’ claims for personal injury found Maxim negligent and partially responsible for Lee’s harm.”
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.