§ 130.004.Owner of Interest in Real Property

The owner exemption, and the list of exceptions to it has grown over time.

Subsection (a): except as provided by the owner-indemnity provision, the duty-to-defend provision, and the standard-of-care section, this chapter does not apply to an owner of an interest in real property or persons employed solely by that owner.

Subsection (b) states the consequence positively: subject to the same three exceptions, the chapter does not prohibit or void a covenant to indemnify or hold harmless an owner and those employed solely by the owner, or to allocate, release, liquidate, limit, or exclude liability in a construction contract between an owner and a design professional.

So owners can still be indemnified, and risk between owner and designer can still be allocated by agreement.

The rationale is bargaining position. The chapter was written to stop indemnity being pushed down the chain onto parties with no ability to refuse it. An owner is at the top of that chain and needs no protection from the parties below.

But the exceptions have narrowed the exemption considerably, and each was added for a reason: owners were requiring designers to indemnify them for their own negligence, then requiring a defence, then imposing heightened standards of care.

The result is a two-way street with limits. An owner may be indemnified for risks that are not its own fault, and may not shift its own negligence, its defence costs, or a heightened standard onto the design professional.

"Employed solely by that owner" is precise — it covers the owner’s own staff and not a contractor serving several clients.