liability arising out of death or bodily injury void - Exceptions. A. For purposes of this section, “construction agreement” means a contract, subcontract, or agreement for construction, alteration, renovation, repair, or maintenance of any building, building site, structure, highway, street, highway bridge, viaduct, water or sewer system, or other works dealing with construction, or for any moving, demolition, excavation, materials, or labor connected with such construction. B. Except as provided in subsection C or D of this section, any provision in a construction agreement that requires an entity or that entity’s surety or insurer to indemnify, insure, defend or hold harmless another entity against liability for damage arising out of death or bodily injury to persons, or damage to property, which arises out of the negligence or fault of the indemnitee, its agents, representatives, subcontractors, or suppliers, is void and unenforceable as against public policy. C. The provisions of this section do not affect any provision in a construction agreement that requires an entity or that entity’s surety or insurer to indemnify another entity against liability for damage arising out of death or bodily injury to persons, or damage to property, but such indemnification shall not exceed any amounts that are greater than that represented by the degree or percentage of negligence or fault attributable to the indemnitor, its agents, representatives, subcontractors, or suppliers. D. This section shall not apply to construction bonds nor to contract clauses which require an entity to purchase a project- specific insurance policy, including owners’ and contractors’ protective liability insurance, project management protective liability insurance, or builder’s risk insurance. E. Any provision, covenant, clause or understanding in a construction agreement that conflicts with the provisions and intent of this section or attempts to circumvent this section by making the agreement subject to the laws of another state, or that requires any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution proceeding arising from the agreement to be conducted in another state, is void and unenforceable. Added by Laws 2006, c. 323, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2006.
Notes of Decisions
Jp Energy Mktg. v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 2018 OK CIV APP 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
· cites it 20× “The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Lexington Ins. v. Precision Drilling Co., 830 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “By way of support for its belief that the Wyoming legislature “intended” to allow only those who purchase a policy to benefit from its terms, Lexington points to the fact that some other states have enacted laws expressly providing as much.”
JP Energy Mktg., LLC v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 412 P.3d 121 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
· cites it 10× “The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Knox v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 2024 OK 37 (Okla. 2024).
· cites it 12× “" 47 Secondly, in 2006 the Legislature similarly apportioned fault and provided for indemnity liability involving a "construction agreement," 15 O.S.2011, § 221, 48 where the indemnity obligation shall not exceed the indemnitor's degree or percentage of negligence or fault , but…”
Cont'l Res. Inc. v. Rink Constr., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 928 (D.N.D. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221 . The parties dispute whether the MSC in this case is a "construction agreement" as defined by the Oklahoma statute.”
Jet Maint. Inc v. Devon Energy Prod. Co. LP (W.D. Okla. 2025).
· cites it 5× “The Court previously denied Devon’s Motion to Dismiss and ruled that Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221 , Oklahoma’s “construction agreement” anti-indemnity statute applied to the MSSA.”
L&N Bridge, LLC v. Energetic Servs., LLC (E.D. Okla. 2024).
· cites it 3× “L&N argues that its claims in this case arise under 15 O.S. § 221 (C). “The language of the Subcontract complies with the exception provided in § 221(C).”
Asset Grp. Inc v. Corrugated Erectors Inc (W.D. Okla. 2023).
“They rely primarily on cases that analyze contractual indemnification obligations after a judgment has been entered—whether by settlement, consent agreement, 1 Asset and Corrugated’s argument relies primarily on Okla.”
Asset Grp. Inc v. Corrugated Erectors Inc (W.D. Okla. 2025).
“Rather than addressing Corrugated’s arguments under the Dobry line of cases, Gravity continues beating the drum that such a result violates Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221 (B). To the extent there is some argument as to why Dobry is inapplicable here, Gravity has not even attempted…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221(A) — 3 cases
Jp Energy Mktg. v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 2018 OK CIV APP 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
JP Energy Mktg., LLC v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 412 P.3d 121 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Jet Maint. Inc v. Devon Energy Prod. Co. LP (W.D. Okla. 2025).
“The Court previously denied Devon’s Motion to Dismiss and ruled that Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221 , Oklahoma’s “construction agreement” anti-indemnity statute applied to the MSSA.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221(B) — 3 cases
Jp Energy Mktg. v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 2018 OK CIV APP 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
JP Energy Mktg., LLC v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 412 P.3d 121 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
L&N Bridge, LLC v. Energetic Servs., LLC (E.D. Okla. 2024).
“L&N argues that its claims in this case arise under 15 O.S. § 221 (C). “The language of the Subcontract complies with the exception provided in § 221(C).”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221(C) — 4 cases
Knox v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 2024 OK 37 (Okla. 2024).
“" 47 Secondly, in 2006 the Legislature similarly apportioned fault and provided for indemnity liability involving a "construction agreement," 15 O.S.2011, § 221, 48 where the indemnity obligation shall not exceed the indemnitor's degree or percentage of negligence or fault , but…”
Jp Energy Mktg. v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 2018 OK CIV APP 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
JP Energy Mktg., LLC v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 412 P.3d 121 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
L&N Bridge, LLC v. Energetic Servs., LLC (E.D. Okla. 2024).
“L&N argues that its claims in this case arise under 15 O.S. § 221 (C). “The language of the Subcontract complies with the exception provided in § 221(C).”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 221(E) — 2 cases
Jp Energy Mktg. v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 2018 OK CIV APP 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
JP Energy Mktg., LLC v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co., 412 P.3d 121 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The indemnity agreements and agreements to name JP as an additional insured do not violate Oklahoma's anti-indemnity statute, 15 O.S. § 221. Therefore, JP is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
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.