BILL ANALYSIS H.B. 1496 By: Sadler May 2, 1995 Committee Report (Unamended) BACKGROUND Present language makes it impossible for contractors providing the services described in the exception to the exception to enter into a valid and enforceable indemnification agreement in favor of their customers such that their insurance will be bound to cover such indemnification agreements. The reality of the marketplace is such that vendors of these services are having to enter into the indemnity agreements only to find the illegality and unenforceability of the agreements providing a defense to insurance companies with respect to liability on claims arising under the indemnity agreements. If the statute is amended to delete the exception within the exception then contractors can continue providing the services with the only difference being that then they can have the same opportunity to enter into indemnification agreements supported by insurance as vendors of services not included in the exception to the exception. PURPOSE As proposed, H.B. 1496 deletes certain exceptions to the exception relating to indemnity agreements. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, agency. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 127.005(a), Civil Practice and Remedies Code, by deleting the exception with respect to the purchase, gathering, storage, or transportation of oil, brine water, fresh water, condensate, produced water, petroleum products, or other liquid commodities for agreements that provide indemnity if the parties agree in writing that the indemnity that the indemnity obligation will be supported by liability insurance coverage to be furnished by the indemnitor. SECTION 2. Specifies that this Act applies only to an agreement that provides for indemnity entered into on or after the effective date of this Act. SECTION 3. Emergency Clause - Effective immediately. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B. 1496 was considered by the Civil Practices Committee in a public hearing on April 12, 1995. The following individuals testified in support of the bill: Mike Parker, attorney, representing himself and Taylor Interests, Inc. No one testified in opposition to or neutrally on the bill. The bill was left pending. The bill was considered by the committee in a formal meeting on May 1, 1995. The bill was reported favorably, without amendment, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed and be sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars, by a record vote of seven ayes, zero nays, zero pnv, and two absent.