Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.115 (2026)

Validity of agreement to indemnify against liability for negligence relative to construction, alteration, improvement, etc., of structure or improvement attached to real estate or relative to a motor carrier transportation contract

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in, or in connection with or collateral to, a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair, addition to, subtraction from, improvement to, or maintenance of, any building, highway, road, railroad, excavation, or other structure, project, development, or improvement attached to real estate, including moving and demolition in connection therewith, a contract or agreement for architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, or land surveying services, or a motor carrier transportation contract, purporting to indemnify, including the duty and cost to defend, against liability for damages arising out of such services or out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property:
(a) Caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the indemnitee, his or her agents or employees is against public policy and is void and unenforceable;
(b) Caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of (i) the indemnitee or the indemnitee's agents or employees, and (ii) the indemnitor or the indemnitor's agents or employees, is valid and enforceable only to the extent of the indemnitor's negligence and only if the agreement specifically and expressly provides therefor, and may waive the indemnitor's immunity under industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW, only if the agreement specifically and expressly provides therefor and the waiver was mutually negotiated by the parties. This subsection applies to agreements entered into after June 11, 1986.
(2) As used in this section, a "motor carrier transportation contract" means a contract, agreement, or understanding covering: (a) The transportation of property for compensation or hire by the motor carrier; (b) entrance on property by the motor carrier for the purpose of loading, unloading, or transporting property for compensation or hire; or (c) a service incidental to activity described in (a) or (b) of this subsection, including, but not limited to, storage of property, moving equipment or trailers, loading or unloading, or monitoring loading or unloading. "Motor carrier transportation contract" shall not include agreements providing for the interchange, use, or possession of intermodal chassis, containers, or other intermodal equipment.
[ 2012 c 160 s 1; 2011 c 336 s 95; 2010 c 120 s 1; 1986 c 305 s 601; 1967 ex.s. c 46 s 2.]

Notes:

Preamble—Report to legislature—Severability—1986 c 305: See notes following RCW 4.16.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Strom Constr. Co., 527 P.2d 1115 (Wash. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Strom Constr. Co., 527 P.2d 1115 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 12× “In the process of reaching its ruling, the trial court held *520 RCW 4.24.115, [1] the purport of which would have otherwise relieved Belden of such liability, to be unconstitutional by virtue of the manner in which it was enacted.”
Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., 271 P.3d 850 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 6× “Rather, the only time that public policy has barred indemnification of the indemnitee in this state is when the legislature has declared in specified circumstances that indemnification for the indemnitee's sole negligence is against public policy, as it did in RCW 4.24.115,…”
Gilbert H. Moen Co. v. Island Steel Erectors, Inc., 878 P.2d 1246 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 11× “h — I The indemnity agreement was governed by RCW 4.24.115, which provides, in pertinent part, that an indemnity agreement between a general contractor and subcontractor for damages or injury: (2) Caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of (a) the indemnitee .”
Jacob's Meadow Owners Ass'n v. PLATEAU 44, 162 P.3d 1153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “115 provides that an indemnity agreement is void as against public policy if it purports to indemnify the indemnitee against liability for bodily injury or damage to property caused by the negligence of the indemnitee.”
Jacob's Meadow Owners Ass'n v. Plateau 44 II, LLC, 139 Wash. App. 743 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “115 provides that an indemnity agreement is void as against public policy if it purports to indemnify the indemnitee against liability for bodily injury or damage to property caused by the negligence of the indemnitee.”
George Sollitt Corp. v. Howard Chapman Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 836 P.2d 851 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “Former RCW 4.24.115. Indemnity provisions in contracts entered into after June 11, 1986, were also void and unenforceable for injuries resulting from the indemnitee's sole negligence, but under certain circumstances were declared valid and enforceable, to the extent of the…”
Int'l Marine Underwriters v. ABCD Marine, LLC, 313 P.3d 395 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “We said our decision to uphold the contract was consistent with RCW 4.24.115, which prohibits agreements requiring indemnification for the sole negligence of the indemnitee.”
Mcdowell v. Austin Co., 710 P.2d 192 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 5× “If so, the court said, the indemnity agreement would be rendered ineffective by RCW 4.24.115. 1 Canron appealed to this court.”
Redford v. City of Seattle, 615 P.2d 1285 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.24.115. However, the release agreement considered here excepts from its provisions Jorgensen's "negligence and willful misconduct” and thus is not violative of the statute.”
Brame v. St. Regis Paper Co., 649 P.2d 836 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 3× “Whether RCW 4.24.115, which invalidates an agreement to indemnify against losses arising from the sole negligence of the indemnitee, is unconstitutional by virtue of the manner of its enactment.”
Millican v. N.A. Degerstrom, Inc., 313 P.3d 1215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.24.115 declares certain indemnification agreements to be valid and enforceable including, in the construction context, an agreement by a subcontractor to indemnify a general contractor against liability for damages caused by the negligence of the subcontractor or its…”
Vodopest v. MacGregor, 913 P.2d 779 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “, RCW 4.24.115 (indemnification agreements in the construction industry).”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.115(1) — 1 case
First Church of Christ Scientist v. City of Seattle, 964 P.2d 374 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.115(1)(a) — 1 case
Urda v. Valmont Indus. Inc. (M.D. La. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.115(1)(b) — 2 cases
Urda v. Valmont Indus. Inc. (M.D. La. 2021).
Dorothy A. Millican v. N.a. Degerstrom Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.115(2) — 4 cases
Gilbert H. Moen Co. v. Island Steel Erectors, Inc., 878 P.2d 1246 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “h — I The indemnity agreement was governed by RCW 4.24.115, which provides, in pertinent part, that an indemnity agreement between a general contractor and subcontractor for damages or injury: (2) Caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of (a) the indemnitee .”
First Church of Christ Scientist v. City of Seattle, 964 P.2d 374 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Waters v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 924 P.2d 925 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Tang, 878 P.2d 487 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.115(l)(b) — 2 cases
Millican v. N.A. Degerstrom, Inc., 313 P.3d 1215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 4.24.115 declares certain indemnification agreements to be valid and enforceable including, in the construction context, an agreement by a subcontractor to indemnify a general contractor against liability for damages caused by the negligence of the subcontractor or its…”
Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC (Wash. 2019).
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.