§ 127.003.Agreement Void and Unenforceable

The operative prohibition, known in practice as the oilfield anti-indemnity act.

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, a covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding contained in, collateral to, or affecting an agreement pertaining to a well or mine is void if it purports to indemnify a person against loss or liability for damage meeting two conditions.

First, causation: the damage is caused by or results from the sole or concurrent negligence of the indemnitee, his agent or employee, or an individual contractor directly responsible to the indemnitee.

"Concurrent" is the word that gives the section its reach. Indemnity is void even where the indemnitee was only partly at fault — so a clause cannot be saved by pointing out that the contractor was negligent too.

Second, the kind of loss: the damage arises from personal injury or death, property injury, or any other loss, damage, or expense that arises from those.

The third category catches consequential loss — downtime, replacement cost, lost production traceable to an injury or to damaged property.

The reach of "contained in, collateral to, or affecting" is deliberate. An indemnity in a separate document, a master service agreement, or a purchase order attached to the work is caught the same as one in the contract itself.

The consequence is voidness, not unenforceability against a particular party. The provision has no effect, and neither side can rely on it.

The opening words matter as much as the rest. The chapter provides substantial exceptions — five categories of loss, and insurance-supported indemnity within stated limits — and those are where most oilfield indemnity now operates.