New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2 (2026)

Oil, gas or water wells and mineral mines; agreements,

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

covenants and promises to indemnify void. A. An agreement, covenant or promise, foreign or domestic, contained in, collateral to or affecting an agreement pertaining to a well for oil, gas or water, or mine for a mineral, within New Mexico, that purports to indemnify the indemnitee against loss or liability for damages arising from the circumstances specified in Paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of this subsection is against public policy and is void:

(1) the sole or concurrent negligence of the indemnitee or the agents or employees of the indemnitee;

(2) the sole or concurrent negligence of an independent contractor who is directly responsible to the indemnitee; or (3) an accident that occurs in operations carried on at the direction or under the supervision of the indemnitee, an employee or representative of the indemnitee or in accordance with methods and means specified by the indemnitee or employees or representatives of the indemnitee.

B. As used in this section, "agreement pertaining to a well for oil, gas or water, or mine for a mineral" means an agreement:

(1) concerning any operations related to drilling, deepening, reworking, repairing, improving, testing, treating, perforating, acidizing, logging, conditioning, altering, plugging or otherwise rendering services in connection with a well drilled for the purpose of producing or disposing of oil, gas or other minerals or water;

(2) for rendering services in connection with a mine shaft, drift or other structure intended for use in the exploration for or production of a mineral; or

(3) to perform a portion of the work or services described in Paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection or an act collateral thereto.

C. A provision in an insurance contract indemnity agreement naming a person as an additional insured or a provision in an insurance contract or any other contract requiring a waiver of rights of subrogation or otherwise having the effect of imposing a duty of indemnification on the primary insured party that would, if it were a direct or collateral agreement described in Subsections A and B of this section, be void, is against public policy and void.

D. Nothing in this section:

(1) deprives an owner of the surface estate of the right to secure indemnity from a lessee, operator, contractor or other person conducting operations for the exploration of minerals on the owner's land; or

(2) affects the validity of a benefit conferred by the Workers' Compensation Act [Chapter 52, Article 1 NMSA 1978].

History: 1953 Comp., § 28-2-2, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 205, § 1; 1999, ch. 162, § 1; 2003, ch. 309, § 2; 2003, ch. 421, § 2.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, in Subsection A, inserted "foreign or domestic" following "covenant or promise", inserted "within New Mexico" following "for a mineral"; and substituted "Paragraph" for "Paragraphs" preceding "(1) or (2)" in Subsection A and Paragraph B(3). Laws 2003, ch. 309, § 2 and Laws 2003, ch. 421, § 2, both effective July 1, 2003, enacted identical amendments to this section. The section was set out as amended by Laws 2003, ch. 421, § 2. See 12-1-8 NMSA 1978.

The 1999 amendment, effective June 18, 1999, rewrote the section, including adding a new Subsection C to expand coverage of prohibited indemnification arrangements.

Determination of type of work to be performed. — Where a contract is so generic in nature that it is not possible to determine the type of work to be performed from the contract itself, the court will look past the contract to the nature of the work being performed at the time of an accident in order to resolve whether the circumstances of a given case are within the scope of the anti-indemnity statutes. Holguin v. Fulco Oil Servs., LLC, 2010-NMCA-091, 149 N.M. 98, 245 P.3d 42, cert. dismissed, 2011- NMCERT-010.

The anti-indemnity statute does not include any activities related to the distribution, processing, or transportation of oil and gas. Holguin v. Fulco Oil Servs., LLC, 2010-NMCA-091, 149 N.M. 98, 245 P.3d 42, cert. dismissed, 2011- NMCERT-010.

Oilfield anti-indemnity statute did not apply to natural gas processing facility. — Where a natural gas company hired contractors to perform work at a natural gas processing facility; the service contract provided that the contractors agreed to indemnify the gas company against all claims even if the claim was based in part on the negligence of the gas company; an employee of one of the contractors sued the gas company for injuries incurred during the cleaning of a "slug catcher", which is a system that removes condensate and other particles from the natural gas; and the slug catcher was not located at a well site and was not part of the production activities associated with a well head, the maintenance of the slug catcher was not within the scope of the oilfield anti-indemnity statute. Holguin v. Fulco Oil Servs., LLC, 2010-NMCA-091, 149 N.M. 98, 245 P.3d 42, cert. dismissed, 2011-NMCERT-010.

Indemnitee cannot contract away liability for own negligence. — The language in Subsection A(4), which makes void and unenforceable any agreement which purports to indemnify an indemnitee for injuries or death "arising from the . . . concurrent negligence of the indemnitee", means only that the indemnitee cannot contract away liability for his own percentage of negligence. Guitard v. Gulf Oil Co., 1983-NMCA-103, 100 N.M. 358, 670 P.2d 969; Brashar v. Mobil Oil Corp., 626 F. Supp. 434 (D.N.M. 1984); Tipton v. Texaco, Inc., 1985-NMSC-108, 103 N.M. 689, 712 P.2d 1351 (decided under prior law).

Indemnity provision that holds an indemnitee harmless against its own negligence is void. — In a subrogation action, where an insurer brought an action as the subrogee of an insured pipeline operator against the surface estate owner and construction company to recover cleanup costs incurred after the release of waste saltwater on the surface of the property from the operator's pipeline, and where the estate owner alleged that the pipeline operator breached the parties saltwater disposal agreement by pursuing claims against the estate owner through a subrogee because the estate owner and the pipeline operator had an agreement whereby the pipeline operator would hold the estate owner harmless from any losses, damages, liabilities, or claims of any kind in connection with the operation, the estate owner was precluded from enforcing the indemnity provision, which required the pipeline operator to indemnify the estate owner for the owner's own negligence. New Mexico law voids indemnity clauses where one party agrees to hold an indemnitee harmless against its own negligence, and the indemnity provision in the saltwater disposal agreement had the effect of relieving the estate owner from liability for its own negligence. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Sedona Contracting, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 3d 1211 (D. N.M. 2020)

Indemnity provision holding each party responsible for its own negligence does not violate this section. — Where oil and gas well operator (operator) brought action against contractor and commercial general liability insurer (insurer), alleging that contractor breached its contractual duties to defend operator against claims asserted in underlying personal injury lawsuits arising from an accident at a well, and that insurer breached its defense and reimbursement obligations to operator, insurer's motion for summary judgment was denied because this section prohibits only those contracts that provide indemnity for one's own negligence, and the master contract in this case does not purport to relieve operator of its own negligence but seeks to indemnify operator for contractor's negligence, for which operator may be held liable. New Mexico courts have allowed indemnity agreements that seek to hold each party responsible for its own negligence. XTO Energy, Inc. v. ATD, LLC, 189 F.Supp.3d 1174 (D.N.M. 2016).

Validity of insurance contract. — Under Subsection A(4), the validity of any insurance contract is not affected where the insurance is purchased by the indemnitor to protect its interests, and not the interest of the indemnitee. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Action Well Serv., Inc., 1988-NMSC-040, 107 N.M. 208, 755 P.2d 52 (decided under prior law).

Enforcement of out-of-state indemnity. — Indemnity provisions requiring an operator to indemnify a driller for the driller's own negligence were valid under Texas law, whose public policy is consistent with New Mexico's, and were enforceable in New Mexico. Reagan v. McGee Drilling Corp., 1997-NMCA-014, 123 N.M. 68, 933 P.2d 867 (decided under prior law).

Fundamental principle of justice. — Section 56-7-2 NMSA 1978, as amended in 1999, is intended to insure the safety of persons and property at well sites within New Mexico and a choice of law provision applying Texas law, by which an indemnitee may be indemnified against its own negligence, is void as violative of the public policy of New Mexico. Piña v. Gruy Petroleum Mgmt. Co., 2006-NMCA-063, 139 N.M. 619, 136 P.3d 1029.

Choice of law provision void. — Indemnification agreements that undermine the indemnitee's incentive to promote safety at New Mexico well sites violate a fundamental public policy of New Mexico and are void and unenforceable and agreements that purport to escape the effect of 56-7-2 NMSA 1978, as amended in 1999, by invoking foreign law are against public policy and are void and unenforceable in New Mexico courts. Piña v. Gruy Petroleum Mgmt. Co., 2006-NMCA-063, 139 N.M. 619, 136 P.3d 1029.

Law reviews. — For article, "Statutory Adoption of Several Liability in New Mexico: A Commentary and Quasi-Legislative History," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 483 (1988).

For note, "Contract law: New Mexico interprets the insurance clause in the oil and gas anti-indemnity statute: Amoco Production Co. v. Action Well Service, Inc.,", see 20 N.M.L. Rev. 179 (1990).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Tenant's agreement to indemnify landlord against all claims as including losses resulting from landlord's negligence, 4 A.L.R.4th 798.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: XTO Energy, Inc. v. ATD, LLC, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.N.M. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

XTO Energy, Inc. v. ATD, LLC, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.N.M. 2016). · cites it 45× “and Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company does not violate New Mexico’s Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Statute, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 56-7-2 ; (ii) whether the Court should clarify Zurich Insurance’s obligations under the insurance contract to explain that Zurich Insurance need only…”

Piña Ex Rel. Est. of Piña v. Gruy Petroleum Mgmt. Co., 136 P.3d 1029 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 62× “{1} This case turns upon the interpretation of NMSA 1978, § 56-7-2 (1999), commonly known as the Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Statute.”

United Rentals Nw., Inc. v. Yearout Mech., Inc., 237 P.3d 728 (N.M. 2010). · cites it 31× “1983) (“the public policy behind [NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (2003), invalidating indemnification clauses in agreements related to drilling and mining operations] is to promote safety”); Piña v.”

Guitard v. Gulf Oil Co., 670 P.2d 969 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 17× “This appeal raises issues concerning indemnity agreements, our anti-indemnity statute, NMSA 1978, § 56-7-2(A), and Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc.”

Holguin v. Fulco Oil Servs., LLC, 245 P.3d 42 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “The Contractors filed separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnity clauses were void and unenforceable under New Mexico anti-indemnity statutes NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-1 (2005) (the construction anti-indemnity statute) and NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (2003)…”

Holguin v. Fulco Oil Servs. L.L.C., 2010 NMCA 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “The Contractors filed separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnity clauses were void and unenforceable under New Mexico anti-indemnity statutes NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-1 (2005) (the construction anti-indemnity statute) and NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (2003)…”

Sierra v. Garcia, 746 P.2d 1105 (N.M. 1987). · cites it 12× “Guitard was based on an interpretation of NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2, which voids indemnity agreements pertaining to operations related to oil, gas or water, or mining for any mineral.”

Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 94 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “§ 9:2780 (West 1991); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 56-7-2 (Michie 2001); Tex.”

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Action Well Serv., Inc., 755 P.2d 52 (N.M. 1988). · cites it 14× “The trial coWt dismissed Amoco’s complaint pursuant to SCRA 1986, 1-012(B)(6) —“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” — on grounds that a contract entered into between the parties giving Amoco a claim for indemnification against Action was violative of NMSA…”

City of Albuquerque v. BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc., 213 P.3d 1146 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “1983) (noting that the mining anti-indemnity statute, NMSA 1978, § 56-7-2 (1971) (amended 1999 and 2003), was intended to promote public safety by ensuring that each party to a mining contract is held accountable for its own negligence and will therefore have an incentive to…”

Reagan v. McGee Drilling Corp., 933 P.2d 867 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (Repl.Pamp.1996), New Mexico’s anti-indemnity statute pertaining to oil well contracts, states: A Any agreement, covenant or promise contained in, collateral to or affecting any agreement pertaining to any well for oil, gas or water, or mine for any…”

Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp., 48 P.3d 70 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “{59} If our Legislature wants to modify the common law to invalidate operator releases in a particular recreational activity or across the board, it presumably can. If the Legislature wants to regulate recreational activity, set safety standards for operators, and establish a…”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(4) — 1 case

Sierra v. Garcia, 746 P.2d 1105 (N.M. 1987). “Guitard was based on an interpretation of NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2, which voids indemnity agreements pertaining to operations related to oil, gas or water, or mining for any mineral.”

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(A) — 11 cases

Guitard v. Gulf Oil Co., 670 P.2d 969 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “This appeal raises issues concerning indemnity agreements, our anti-indemnity statute, NMSA 1978, § 56-7-2(A), and Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc.”

United Rentals Nw., Inc. v. Yearout Mech., Inc., 237 P.3d 728 (N.M. 2010). “1983) (“the public policy behind [NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (2003), invalidating indemnification clauses in agreements related to drilling and mining operations] is to promote safety”); Piña v.”

Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp., 48 P.3d 70 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “{59} If our Legislature wants to modify the common law to invalidate operator releases in a particular recreational activity or across the board, it presumably can. If the Legislature wants to regulate recreational activity, set safety standards for operators, and establish a…”

Tipton v. Texaco, Inc., 712 P.2d 1351 (N.M. 1985).

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(A)(3) — 1 case

XTO Energy, Inc. v. ATD, LLC, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.N.M. 2016). “and Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company does not violate New Mexico’s Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Statute, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 56-7-2 ; (ii) whether the Court should clarify Zurich Insurance’s obligations under the insurance contract to explain that Zurich Insurance need only…”

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(A)(4) — 4 cases

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Action Well Serv., Inc., 755 P.2d 52 (N.M. 1988). “The trial coWt dismissed Amoco’s complaint pursuant to SCRA 1986, 1-012(B)(6) —“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” — on grounds that a contract entered into between the parties giving Amoco a claim for indemnification against Action was violative of NMSA…”

Reagan v. McGee Drilling Corp., 933 P.2d 867 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). “NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (Repl.Pamp.1996), New Mexico’s anti-indemnity statute pertaining to oil well contracts, states: A Any agreement, covenant or promise contained in, collateral to or affecting any agreement pertaining to any well for oil, gas or water, or mine for any…”

Piña Ex Rel. Est. of Piña v. Gruy Petroleum Mgmt. Co., 136 P.3d 1029 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “{1} This case turns upon the interpretation of NMSA 1978, § 56-7-2 (1999), commonly known as the Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Statute.”

Herrera v. Amoco Prod. Co., 623 F. Supp. 378 (D.N.M. 1985).

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(A)(l) — 1 case

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(B) — 4 cases

Holguin v. Fulco Oil Servs. L.L.C., 2010 NMCA 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “The Contractors filed separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnity clauses were void and unenforceable under New Mexico anti-indemnity statutes NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-1 (2005) (the construction anti-indemnity statute) and NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (2003)…”

Holguin v. Fulco Oil Servs., LLC, 245 P.3d 42 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “The Contractors filed separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnity clauses were void and unenforceable under New Mexico anti-indemnity statutes NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-1 (2005) (the construction anti-indemnity statute) and NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-2 (2003)…”

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sedona Contracting, Inc. (D.N.M. 2020).

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(B)(1) — 1 case

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(B)(3) — 2 cases

— N.M. Stat. § 56-7-2(D) — 1 case

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sedona Contracting, Inc. (D.N.M. 2020).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.