Oklahoma Supreme Court calls into question indemnity provisions in oilfield service contracts

McAfee & Taft
Contact

McAfee & Taft

In Knox, an employee died at a construction site while working for his employer, BJ Oilfield Construction. The decedent’s spouse brought claims against another contractor on site who, relying on its status as third-party beneficiary in BJ Oilfield’s contract, tendered demand for defense and indemnity against BJ Oilfield. The relevant indemnity provision provided that BJ Oilfield agreed to: “defend, indemnify, and hold harmless . . . from and against any claim, cost, expense or liability . . . attributable, to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, . . . caused by, arising out of, resulting from, or occurring in connection with the performance of the work by” BJ Oilfield. The Supreme Court held that this indemnity provision violated the exclusive remedy provisions of the Oklahoma Workers Compensation Act and was, therefore, unenforceable as to claims for negligence. Indemnity for intentional tort claims remain viable.

We recommend that companies review the current indemnity structure in active service contracts to determine whether amendments are necessary

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© McAfee & Taft

Written by:

McAfee & Taft
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

McAfee & Taft on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide