Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

Louisiana Senate Bill SB625

Introduced
3/29/10  
Refer
3/29/10  
Report Pass
5/12/10  
Engrossed
6/3/10  
Refer
6/4/10  
Report Pass
6/9/10  
Enrolled
6/21/10  
Chaptered
6/23/10  

Caption

Prohibits certain indemnity provisions in certain motor carrier transportation contracts and certain construction contracts. (1/1/11)

Impact

The enactment of SB625 will directly impact how contracts are drafted and understood within the state, particularly in the transportation and construction industries. By invalidating indemnity clauses that contravene the public policy of the state, the bill promotes accountability in contractual relationships. The bill serves as a legal safeguard for parties that might otherwise be held liable for damages or negligence resulting from the actions of another party, thereby fostering a more balanced approach to contractual obligations.

Summary

Senate Bill 625 seeks to regulate indemnity clauses within certain contracts in Louisiana, specifically motor carrier transportation contracts and construction contracts. The main objective of the bill is to render certain indemnity provisions null and void if they attempt to indemnify a party from their own negligence or intentional acts. This legislation aims to enhance fairness in contractual obligations by preventing one party from disproportionately bearing the liability for the actions of another, especially in cases where the indemnitee has no control over the circumstances leading to liability.

Sentiment

General sentiment towards SB625 appears to lean in favor of protecting weaker parties in contractual agreements. Supporters argue that the bill reflects a necessary legal reform, promoting equitable practices and diminishing the risk of unfair contractual liabilities which can disproportionately affect smaller entities. However, there may also be opposition from sectors that benefit from such indemnity provisions, who could perceive the bill as limiting their ability to secure comprehensive protection against liability.

Contention

Notable points of contention revolve around the potential implications of the bill for businesses relying on indemnity provisions in their contracts. Critics may argue that removing these provisions could expose businesses to increased risks and costs, leading to higher insurance premiums or limited willingness to enter particular contracts. These discussions bring to light the complex balance between ensuring fair business practices and maintaining the operational flexibility that certain industries require.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB914

Local agency contracts: construction manager at-risk construction contracts.

CA AB851

Local agency contracts.

CA SB739

Construction manager at-risk construction contracts: City of Elk Grove: zoo project.

CA AB1932

Public contracts: construction manager at-risk construction contracts.

AZ SB1099

Progressive design-build; ADOT

CA SB626

Department of Water Resources: Procurement Methods.

CA AB1475

Construction Manager/General Contractor method: transportation projects.

WV SB783

West Virginia School Construction Alternatives Pilot Program Act