Limitation of Liability vs Indemnification: What They Mean and Why They Matter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Limitation of Liability vs Indemnification Header Banner

For a clear, authoritative exploration of limitation of liability clauses, including template language, you can visit Sirion’s Limitation of Liability Clause Resource.

For further explanation on indemnification, including legal definitions and enforcement tips, see Sirion’s Guide to Indemnification Clauses.

For deeper clarity on how enforceability varies by region, see our guide on the Jurisdiction Clause in Agreement.

Usually, indemnities are carved out from limitation of liability caps because they involve third-party claims and potentially large exposures. However, parties can agree to limit indemnities subject to negotiation.

Direct damages arise naturally from a breach, while indirect or consequential damages include losses caused indirectly, like lost profits. Contracts commonly limit recoveries to direct damages only.

They are related but not identical. Indemnification requires compensation for losses, while hold harmless typically means protecting a party from liability, which can involve defense obligations. Many contracts combine these concepts.

Jurisdictions vary widely. Some have consumer protection laws or statutes like the Unfair Contract Terms Act limiting enforceability. International contracts should consider local legal constraints carefully.

Healthcare often excludes patient confidentiality or malpractice claims. Technology contracts carve out IP infringement indemnities. Manufacturing frequently excludes product liability and bodily injury.