Skip to main content

BP Can’t Collect Part of Gulf Spill Costs From Transocean

Bloomberg News issues breaking news that in the case of In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans ruled yesterday that BP Plc ("BP") cannot collect from Transocean Ltd. ('Transocean") part of the $40 billion in cleanup costs and economic losses caused by the 2010 DEEPWATER HORIZON oil well blowout and Gulf of Mexico spill.

Readers of this Blog and who attended my seminar in London on this tragedy will recall that London-based BP sued Transocean in April to recover a share of its damages and costs from the spill. BP said that the contract required indemnification even if there was gross negligence and obviously, BP disagreed.

Judge Barbier wrote in his decision: “BP is required to indemnify Transocean for compensatory damages asserted by third parties against Transocean related to pollution that did not originate on or above the surface of the water, even if the claim is the result of Transocean’s strict liability” or negligence or gross negligence." However, Barbier deferred ruling on “BP’s arguments that Transocean breached the drilling contract or committed an act that materially increased BP’s risk or prejudiced its rights.” As a result, BP must indemnify Transocean for pollution-related economic damage claims under its drilling contract, but any awards for punitive damages against Transocean or civil penalties under the U.S. Clean Water Act will not be covered by BP, the judge added.

You can view the complete Bloomberg News at this address => http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=5568437867421630472&gid=3058724&type=member&item=91509288&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebloomberg%2Ecom%2Fnews%2F2012-01-26%2Fbp-must-indemnify-transocean-for-some-damages-in-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill%2Ehtml&urlhash=4yJi&goback=%2Egde_3058724_member_91509288.

Thus, the decision leaves Transocean at risk for Clean Water Act penalties and possible punitive damages. If you are interested in contacting me, you may do so at miamipandi@comcast.net.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more