Directional drilling by state
Directional Drilling Insurance in Texas
Texas is the state where the anti-indemnity statute reaches your bore and voids the certificate requirement with it — and where the damage prevention act deliberately says nothing about who pays for the strike.
Two anti-indemnity statutes can open with the same six words and end in opposite places. Texas Insurance Code §151.001(5) defines a construction contract as one for work on “a building, structure, appurtenance, or other improvement to or on public or private real property, including moving, demolition, and excavation connected with the real property.” Florida’s §725.06 says “building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance” and stops. That closure is what a Florida court relied on to hold the statute did not govern a utility-line subcontract. Texas carries the residual clause Florida lacks, so the same bore that falls outside the Florida statute falls squarely inside this one.
The consequence runs further than the indemnity paragraph. Chapter 151 reaches the certificate as well, which very few states do. Meanwhile the Texas one-call statute takes the opposite approach to its Florida counterpart on the question a contractor cares about most — it declines to decide who pays for a strike at all. Chapter 151 reaches the certificate and ch. 251 refuses the allocation. The strike neither of them prices sits on the Directional Drilling Insurance pillar and the pollution liability page.
Boring in Texas? If §151.104 voids the endorsement your prime is demanding, the certificate is the problem — not the price.
Get a Free QuoteChapter 151 reaches your bore, and it reaches the certificate
Insurance Code §151.102 makes a provision in a construction contract, or in an agreement collateral to or affecting one, void and unenforceable as against public policy to the extent it requires an indemnitor to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend a party — including a third party — against a claim caused by the negligence or fault, the breach or violation of a statute, ordinance, governmental regulation, standard or rule, or the breach of contract of the indemnitee. That is a broad rule by national standards, and it is not conditioned on a dollar cap the way Florida’s is.
§151.104 is the provision that changes how a Texas certificate has to be read. It carries the same treatment across to a requirement that one party provide additional-insured coverage to another, so the insurance mechanism is reached and not just the promise to indemnify. That is unusual. Indiana’s statute contains no additional-insured provision at all; Florida’s does not either; Missouri expressly exempts a promise to name another party as an additional insured from its void. In Texas, by contrast, an endorsement a prime insists on can be unenforceable to the extent it responds to that prime’s own fault — which means a certificate can be issued accurately, accepted, filed, and still not do what the contract assumed it would do.
Two carve-outs survive and both matter on a bore. §151.103 preserves indemnity for a claim for the bodily injury or death of the indemnitor’s own employee, or of an agent or subcontractor of the indemnitor or their employees — the classic employee-injury indemnity a prime will still ask for and still get. §151.105 sets the treatment of a consolidated insurance program. And under §151.101 the subchapter applies where the indemnitor is provided or procures insurance subject to chapter 151 or Title 10, rather than only inside a wrap-up, so an ordinary subcontractor carrying ordinary commercial coverage is inside the rule.
What the Texas one-call act does — and what it pointedly does not
Utilities Code chapter 251 begins by putting fiber in the higher of its two tiers. §251.002(1) defines a Class A underground facility to include one used to produce, store, convey, transmit, or distribute “any form of telecommunications service, including voice, data, video, or optical transmission, or cable television service.” Class B, under §251.002(2), is water, slurry, and sewage. Optical transmission is named in the statute, so a fiber line is Class A — grouped with natural gas and petroleum rather than with water — and the higher-tier duties and protections attach to it.
The act declines to decide liability. §251.008 provides that except as otherwise specifically provided by the chapter, the chapter — including the civil penalty section — does not affect any civil remedy for personal injury or for property damage, including any damage to an underground facility. There is no statutory presumption of negligence and no ceiling on what an operator can recover. A strike claim in Texas is litigated as a negligence case, on the locate record and the field documentation, with the statute alongside rather than controlling. Contractors who also bore in states that legislate the liability question directly should be careful not to carry the assumption across the line.
The marking duty carries a discretion clause. §251.157(a) requires each Class A operator contacted by the notification system to mark the approximate location of its facilities at or near the site of the proposed excavation “if the operator believes that marking the location is necessary,” within the timing the section then prescribes. Read together with §251.008, a dispute over whether marking was necessary or accurate resolves as an ordinary negligence question, which puts a great deal of weight on what your crew recorded at the time.
Penalties are modest, prosecutorial, and have a remedial off-ramp. §251.201(a) sets a civil penalty of not less than $500 or more than $1,000 for an excavator that violates §251.151, §251.152, or §251.159; §251.201(a-1) sets not less than $1,000 or more than $2,000 for a violation of §251.155(d). If a county attorney or district attorney decides not to bring the action, the board of directors of the notification corporation may issue a warning letter and require attendance at an approved safety training course instead, and the attorney must tell the board of the decision. §251.203 adds a criminal offense for intentionally removing, damaging, or concealing a marker for a Class A facility where the marker gives notice of the penalty.
Reading the endorsement against §151.104
Put the two statutes together and Texas inverts the Florida picture on both axes. The indemnity clause is more likely to be cut back, not less — and the certificate requirement with it. But the strike itself is left to ordinary tort law with no cap, so the exposure that survives is the one a policy has to answer for rather than the one a statute trims.
That shapes three things on a Texas file. We read the additional-insured endorsement against §151.104 before it is issued, because an endorsement that is void to the extent it reaches the prime’s own fault is not a coverage win for anyone and is better resolved before a loss than after. We size liability limits against an uncapped tort exposure rather than against a statutory ceiling, since chapter 251 supplies none. And pollution liability stays the signature line, because the strike and the frac-out are still environmental losses the general liability form excludes, and nothing in either Texas statute changes that.
Chapter 151 reaches the additional-insured requirement as well as the indemnity clause, and ch. 251 declines to decide who pays for a strike — both read here against a bore. Everything else in a Texas program is on our Texas fiber contractor insurance page.
Why Fiber Optic Guard Insurance
What we actually do on a Texas file: read the certificate and endorsement against §151.104 before it is issued, size liability limits against a tort exposure chapter 251 deliberately leaves uncapped, and keep the pollution line matched to an environmental loss neither statute addresses at all. If your prime contract already specifies additional-insured status, send it — in Texas that requirement is the thing most likely to be doing something the statute will not let it do.
Learn more
The operating model and its coverage
Other fiber operating models
Texas
Primary sources cited on this page
Frequently asked questions about Texas directional drilling insurance
Does Texas’s anti-indemnity statute apply to a fiber bore?
Yes, and that is worth stating plainly because the answer is different one state over. Texas Insurance Code §151.001(5) defines a construction contract as one for work on “a building, structure, appurtenance, or other improvement to or on public or private real property, including moving, demolition, and excavation connected with the real property.” A buried fiber conduit is an improvement to real property and the bore is excavation connected with it, so the chapter reaches the work. §151.001(2) confirms the shape of the exclusions: a construction project excludes a single family house, townhouse, duplex, or land development directly related to those. The carve-outs are residential, not linear-utility. Under §151.101 the subchapter applies where the indemnitor is provided or procures insurance subject to chapter 151 or Title 10, so it is not confined to consolidated insurance programs.
Why does Florida reach the opposite answer on almost the same words?
Because one list is closed and the other is not, and that single difference decides the case. Florida Statutes §725.06 covers a “building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance” and stops there, and Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal relied on exactly that closure to hold the statute did not govern a subcontract on a project involving the laying and maintenance of utility lines. Texas opens with nearly the same nouns — building, structure, appurtenance — and then adds “or other improvement to or on public or private real property, including moving, demolition, and excavation connected with the real property.” The residual clause is the whole difference. The same bore, the same contract language, and opposite statutory protection depending on which side of the state line the entry pit sits on.
Does Texas void the additional-insured requirement as well as the indemnity?
It does, and this is the provision that most often surprises a contractor who has been told to “just add them as additional insured.” Texas Insurance Code §151.102 makes a provision in a construction contract void and unenforceable as against public policy to the extent it requires an indemnitor to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend a party against a claim caused by the negligence or fault, the breach or violation of a statute, ordinance, governmental regulation, standard or rule, or the breach of contract of the indemnitee. §151.104 extends that treatment to a provision requiring additional-insured coverage, so the insurance mechanism is reached and not only the indemnity promise. Most states that have an anti-indemnity statute do not go that far — Indiana and Florida have no additional-insured provision at all, and Missouri expressly permits the promise.
What does chapter 151 still allow a prime to require from me?
Two carve-outs matter on a bore. Under §151.103 the void does not extend to indemnity for a claim for the bodily injury or death of the indemnitor’s own employee, an agent or subcontractor of the indemnitor, or their employees — so the classic employee-injury indemnity survives. Under §151.105 the subchapter does not apply to a consolidated insurance program in the circumstances that section describes. Practically, a Texas prime can still push meaningful risk down the chain; what it cannot do is make you answer for its own negligence, or require a certificate that does the same thing through an additional-insured endorsement.
Is fiber covered by the Texas one-call law?
Expressly, and by name. Texas Utilities Code §251.002(1) defines a Class A underground facility to include one used to produce, store, convey, transmit, or distribute “any form of telecommunications service, including voice, data, video, or optical transmission, or cable television service.” Optical transmission is fiber, so a fiber line sits in Class A alongside electrical energy, natural gas, petroleum, and steam. Class B under §251.002(2) is water, slurry, and sewage. The classification is not cosmetic — it determines which marking duties attach and which facilities the criminal provision protects.
If my bore hits a line in Texas, does the one-call statute decide who pays?
No, and that is the most important structural fact about the Texas act. Utilities Code §251.008 provides that except as otherwise specifically provided by the chapter, the chapter — including the civil penalty section — does not affect any civil remedy for personal injury or for property damage, including any damage to an underground facility. Texas creates no statutory presumption of negligence and no cap on what an operator can recover. Liability is decided under ordinary tort and contract law, with the statute sitting alongside as a regulatory and penalty regime rather than on top of it. Several states do the opposite and legislate the liability question directly, so a contractor who works across state lines should not carry an assumption from one into the other.
What are the penalties under the Texas one-call law?
Under Utilities Code §251.201(a) an excavator that violates §251.151, §251.152, or §251.159 is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $500 or more than $1,000. Under §251.201(a-1) a violation of §251.155(d) — the emergency-notice provision — carries a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 or more than $2,000. The enforcement route is unusual: if a county attorney or district attorney decides not to bring an action to recover the penalty, the board of directors of the notification corporation may instead issue a warning letter and require the excavator to attend an approved safety training course, and the attorney must notify the board of that decision. There is also a criminal provision at §251.203 for intentionally removing, damaging, or concealing a marker for a Class A facility where the marker gives notice of the penalty.
Does the operator have to mark before my bore?
The duty is real but it is written with a discretion clause worth reading. Utilities Code §251.157(a) provides that each Class A underground facility operator contacted by the notification system shall mark the approximate location of its facilities at or near the site of the proposed excavation “if the operator believes that marking the location is necessary,” within timing the section then sets out. Because §251.008 leaves civil remedies to ordinary law, a dispute about whether marking was necessary — or accurate — is resolved as a negligence question rather than by a statutory immunity or presumption. That is why the locate record and the field documentation carry the weight they do on a Texas bore.
What happens when a Texas prime rejects the certificate I already have?
The contractors who call us are usually calling because a prime rejected the certificate they already had, on limits or on the coverage form, and their current agent could not fix it. In Texas that conversation runs into a statute rather than around one. Because §151.104 reaches additional-insured requirements and not only the indemnity promise, an endorsement a prime is insisting on may be unenforceable to the extent it covers that prime’s own negligence — so a certificate can be entirely accurate and still not deliver what the contract asked for. Because fiber and utility contracting is what we write, we place with markets that many generalist agents do not have access to, which usually means rebuilding the program around what chapter 151 will actually let the contract do.
Insure your Texas bores against what the contract can actually require
Send the prime contract and the bore profile. In Texas the limit on what a prime can demand is statutory, and it is worth knowing before you sign rather than after a line is down.
Get a Free Quote