Is there anything wrong with indemnifying my clients "to the fullest extent permitted by law?"

The problem here is that the law governing contracts for construction in most states is more permissive than the coverage afforded by your insurance. Those who have read "Counting Coup" will understand why: The law generally permits indemnification which extends well beyond your negligence. Your legal liability and your insurance fence the field of your negligence, but the law may enforce a fence which encloses that and the field of harm caused by others, as well. Some laws prohibit indemnification against the consequences of the sole (and in some cases the sole, active) negligence of others. If there is no harm in your field, you cannot be made to answer for harm in the field of someone else. but, if there is 1% harm in your field, you could be made to answer for the 99% harm in the field of another. Coup is counted on you at 1%. Since "the fullest extent permitted by law" is inconsistent with where we are headed in our quest for fairness and insurability, these words have no place in your agreement. Take them out.