Equal Rights Center v. NILES BOLTON ASSOCIATES
602 F.3d 597 | Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | 2010
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A developer tried to pass discrimination liability to its architect through an indemnification clause in their contract. The court ruled that federal fair housing and disability laws don't allow this. Developers and general contractors cannot shift their legal duty to comply with anti-discrimination laws to subcontractors or design professionals. This means you can't be forced to indemnify a client for their discrimination violations.
Key Takeaways
- •Broad indemnification clauses that cover discrimination violations are unenforceable and void under federal law
- •You cannot be held responsible for a developer's or GC's failure to follow fair housing and ADA requirements, even if your contract says otherwise
- •Review all indemnity language in your contracts and push back on clauses that try to make you liable for client non-compliance with federal discrimination laws
Allowing indemnification undermines regulatory purposes of FHA and ADA.
Frequently Asked Question
Can my contract make me indemnify the general contractor for fair housing or disability law violations?
No. Federal courts have ruled that indemnification clauses cannot shift discrimination compliance duties to subcontractors. These non-delegable duties stay with the party responsible for the project. Any contract language attempting this is preempted by federal law and unenforceable.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.