Any provision contained in any contract relating to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of a building, structure or appurtenance thereto, including moving, demolition and excavation connected therewith, or any provision contained in any contract relating to the construction of projects other than buildings by which the contractor performing such work purports to indemnify or hold harmless another party to the contract against liability for damage arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property suffered in the course of performance of the contract, caused by or resulting solely from the negligence of such other party or his agents or employees, is against public policy and is void and unenforceable. This section applies to such contracts between contractors and any public body, as defined in § 2.2-4301.
This section shall not affect the validity of any insurance contract, workers' compensation, or any agreement issued by an admitted insurer.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to any provision of any contract entered into prior to July 1, 1973.
1973, c. 273; 1974, c. 430; 1991, c. 363.
Notes of Decisions
Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 3d 631 (E.D. Va. 2018).
· cites it 43× “Ellis, III, United States District Judge At issue on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in this breach of contract and quantum meruit case is whether the contractual indemnification provision on which plaintiff's claim is based is invalid pursuant to Virginia Code § 11-4.1.…”
UNIWEST CONST. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., 699 S.E.2d 223 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 24× “The circuit court determined that the defense and indemnification provision in Paragraph 10 of the Subcontract was void pursuant to Code § 11-4.1 because it indemnified Uniwest for its own negligence.”
RSC Equip. Rental, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins., 54 F. Supp. 3d 480 (W.D. Va. 2014).
· cites it 41× “” Va.Code § 11-4.1. In Carpenter , the Fourth Circuit noted that the harms “were not ‘suffered in the course of performance’ of the [contract] .”
Genito Glenn, L.P. v. Nat'l Hous. Bldg. Corp., 50 Va. Cir. 71 (Virginia Beach Cir. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 10× “In support of its contention, Rogers points to Va. Code § 11-4.1, which provides that: [a]ny provision contained in any contract relating to the construction .”
Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc., 791 S.E.2d 734 (Va. 2016).
· cites it 2× “" In Hensel Phelps' subcontracts, which predated the Uniwest holding, the indemnification provisions similarly provide for indemnification against Hensel Phelps' own negligence. Because the Uniwest holding renders unenforceable the indemnification provision of Hensel Phelps'…”
Fortune-Johnson, Inc. v. RPM Constr. Corp. (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 46× “Fortune-Johnson contends the court misconstrued Articles 16 and 18 in the subcontracts; misapplied the anti-indemnification statute of Code § 11-4.1; disregarded ambiguities in the subcontracts’ language; and improperly made negligence a prerequisite for equitable…”
Fortune-Johnson, Inc. v. QFS, LLC, f/k/a Quiet Floor Sys., LLC (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 46× “Fortune-Johnson contends the court misconstrued Articles 16 and 18 in the subcontracts; misapplied the anti-indemnification statute of Code § 11-4.1; disregarded ambiguities in the subcontracts’ language; and improperly made negligence a prerequisite for equitable…”
Fortune-Johnson, Inc. v. Millennium Constr., LLC (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 46× “Fortune-Johnson contends the court misconstrued Articles 16 and 18 in the subcontracts; misapplied the anti-indemnification statute of Code § 11-4.1; disregarded ambiguities in the subcontracts’ language; and improperly made negligence a prerequisite for equitable…”
Fortune-Johnson, Inc. v. Babcock Enter., Inc., d/b/a R & B Constr. (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 46× “Fortune-Johnson contends the court misconstrued Articles 16 and 18 in the subcontracts; misapplied the anti-indemnification statute of Code § 11-4.1; disregarded ambiguities in the subcontracts’ language; and improperly made negligence a prerequisite for equitable…”
Fortune-Johnson, Inc. v. Advanced Caulking & Waterproofing, Inc. (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 46× “Fortune-Johnson contends the court misconstrued Articles 16 and 18 in the subcontracts; misapplied the anti-indemnification statute of Code § 11-4.1; disregarded ambiguities in the subcontracts’ language; and improperly made negligence a prerequisite for equitable…”
Green v. Sauder Mouldings, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D. Va. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Sauder assails the indemnity provision on four (4) separate fronts: (1) that the indemnity provision is void as violative of public policy; (2) that it is void as unconscionable; (3) that strictly construed, it does not shield United from liability; and (4) that it specifically…”
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.