1 IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON: TEXAS TO REVISIT ATOFINA TO DECIDE SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL-INSURED LIABILITY COVERAGE I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON: PRESENTING A DEEPER ISSUE THAN BP S DEEP POCKETS... 2 III. ATOFINA AND THE SEPARATE-AND-INDEPENDENT RULE... 4 IV. SCOPE OF THE INSURANCE POLICY: ANALYSIS... 5 A. The Service Agreement Indemnity Provision Coverage- Limiting Language... 6 B. The Policies... 7 V. CONTRA PROFERENTEM VERSUS THE SOPHISTICATED-INSURED EXCEPTION... 8 VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 was wrought with controversy surrounding who was responsible for the resulting devastation on the Louisiana gulf s community and ecology. Particularly, an issue arose between conflicting language in a service agreement s indemnity provision and a separate insurance policy between BP Exploration and Production, Incorporated and Transocean, Ltd, as well as Transocean s insurers. When one coverage-provision provides for broader liability, the question becomes, which one controls? Generally, a service agreement in the oil and gas industry requires the parties agree to an indemnity provision. 2 A service agreement can require listing one party as an additional insured on the other s insurance policies; however, an issue may arise as is the case here when the insurance policy coverage is broader than the liability coverage of the separate service agreement s indemnity provision. 3 The Fifth Circuit seeks to resolve that 1. This Note was originally published in September As of January 2015, a decision is still pending. 2. Christopher L. Evans & F. Lee Bulter, Reciprocal Indemnification Agreements in the Oil Industry: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, 77 DEF. COUNS. J. 226, 226 (2010). Indemnity means a contracting party agrees to take responsibility for injur[ies] or property damage claims... regardless of which party may actually be responsible. Id. The parties can agree to full indemnity or specify limited coverage. Id. 3. Robert H. Etnyre & Marcus R. Tucker, Insurance Coverage Issues Raised by Typical Contractual Indemnity and Additional Insured Provisions in Oil and Gas Contracts, 51 ADVOCATE 45, 45 (2011). Additional insured parties are added to a primary insured s insurance 1
2 2 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Fall 2014 issue in In Re Deepwater Horizon. 4 The Fifth Circuit asks the Texas Supreme Court to revisit its current holding in Evanston Insurance Company v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Incorporated 5 to firmly decide whether an insurance policy s provision that extends broader liability coverage to an additional insured is read separately from the limitedliability service agreement s indemnity provision and treated as the sole determinant for the scope of coverage. 6 Additionally, the court asks whether contra proferentem, a contract policy defense, or the sophisticated-insured exception may be applicable to these types of disputes. 7 This Note explains why the Texas Supreme Court should adhere to the precedent in ATOFINA. Part II introduces In Re Deepwater Horizon while Part III provides a detailed discussion of the Texas Supreme Court holding in ATOFINA. Then, Part IV examines the application of ATOFINA to In Re Deepwater Horizon, followed by the potential policy defenses in Part V. Part VI concludes by answering the Fifth Circuit s questions affirmatively; the Texas Supreme Court should find in favor of applying ATOFINA s separate-and-independent rule, as well as recognize the defense of contra proferentem. II. IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON: PRESENTING A DEEPER ISSUE THAN BP S DEEP POCKETS After the oil spill at Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, more than 200 million gallons of oil spread, killing marine life and water birds, entering estuaries, and polluting shores. 8 As legal issues surfaced, one company s name captured the titles of media headlines, BP. 9 However, while BP s pockets were and continue to be the major target for policies. Id. Primary insured parties expect their full additional insured commitments will be recognized by their insurance companies. Id. 4. In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491, 491 (5th Cir. 2013) S.W.3d 660, (Tex. 2008) (holding that an insurance policy is not limited by the indemnity provision of a service agreement when the additional insured brings a claim against the insurer for coverage because the two documents are separate and independent of each other). 6. Id. at Id. at Vernon Valentine Palmer, The Great Spill in the Gulf... and a Sea of Pure Economic Loss: Reflections on the Boundaries of Civil Liability, 115 PENN ST. L. REV. 105, (2011). 9. See, e.g., Jeffrey W. Peters, Efforts to Limit the Flow of Spill News, N.Y. TIMES, June 9, 2010, Andy Rowell, Another $20 Billion Bill for BP, THE PRICE OF OIL (Dec. 16, 2010), billion-bill-for-bp/.
3 2014] In Re Deepwater Horizon 3 damages, 10 other entities, such as Transocean, received their own bills stemming from their contracts with BP. 11 Transocean owned Deepwater, the offshore drilling unit. 12 Transocean entered into a service agreement with BP to lease Deepwater for drilling in BP s Macondo Prospect. 13 The service agreement contained two important provisions: an indemnity clause and a requirement that Transocean carry insurance covering BP as an additional insured in each of [Transocean s] policies. 14 Transocean entered into an insurance agreement with the insurers for primary and excess liability (the umbrella policy ) coverage, which extended to BP as an additional insured. 15 Containing similar terms, the policies allowed the insurers discretion to provide additional-insured coverage only to the extent... required under contract or agreement with Transocean. 16 As stated, the policies afforded insurance to any person or entity to whom [Transocean are] obliged by any oral or written Insured Contract 17 Following BP s request for coverage from the insurers related to oilspill pollution, the insurers contested BP s subsurface-pollution claims. 18 The insurers argued they were not responsible for providing coverage to subsurface pollution under the insurance policies because the separate indemnity clause in the service agreement limited Transocean s liability to only above-surface oil pollution. 19 BP countered that the insurance policies provided broad[er] coverage than the indemnity clause in the service agreement because, in the absence of any coverage-limiting language, the policies should be interpreted by the terms in the policies alone, which covered both subsurface and above-surface oil pollution See Palmer, supra note 8, at In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010, No c/w , MPL No. 2179, No WL , at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 15, 2011) (hereinafter In re Deepwater). 12. In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013). 13. Id. 14. In re Deepwater, 2011 WL , at *2 (quoting the insurance policy) (internal quotation marks omitted). 15. Id. at *2 3. This author notes that Insurers are not a party to the service agreement between BP and Transocean. 16. Id. at * Id. (emphasis omitted). The words Insured Contract, whenever used in this Policy, shall mean any written or oral contract or agreement entered into by [Transocean... and pertaining to business under which the [Transocean] assumes the tort liability of another party. 18. Id. at * Id. The indemnity clause stated that Transocean indemnified BP for above-surface oil pollution discharges and BP indemnified Transocean for all subsurface pollution. Id. at * Id. at *2.
4 4 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Fall 2014 After initially finding favor with BP s argument that the insurance policies were separate from and additional to the indemnity clause in the service agreement, 21 the Fifth Circuit granted the defendants petition for rehearing, requesting certification from the Texas Supreme Court whether the policies should be read separate and independent from the service agreement s indemnity provision. 22 A discussion of the Texas Supreme Court s decision in ATOFINA is a necessary starting point to answer the Fifth Circuit s questions. III. ATOFINA AND THE SEPARATE-AND-INDEPENDENT RULE In addressing the relationship between the indemnity provision of a service agreement and a separate insurance policy, Texas courts have long held that the two provisions are separate and independent from each other, even when read in the same contract. 23 When the two provisions are in separate and independent contracts, the Texas Supreme Court held in ATOFINA that the indemnity provision of a contract does not control the scope of coverage under an insurance policy. 24 ATOFINA entered into a service agreement with Triple S Industrial Corporation to complete construction work at ATOFINA s refinery. 25 Triple S added ATOFINA as an additional insured on its insurance policies, as required by the service agreement. 26 An issue occurred when a Triple S employee was injured on ATOFINA s site the employee sued ATOFINA 21. In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013). 22. See discussion supra Part I; In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491, 500 (5th Cir. 2013) ( [W]e hereby certify the following determinative questions of Texas law to the Supreme Court of Texas. 1. Whether Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2008), compels a finding that BP is covered for the damages at issue, because the language of the umbrella policies alone determines the extent of BP s coverage as an additional insured if, and so long as, the additional insured and indemnity provisions of the [d]rilling [c]ontract are separate and independent? 2. Whether the doctrine of contra proferentem applies to the interpretation of the insurance coverage provision of the Drilling Contract under the ATOFINA case, 256 S.W.3d at 668, given the facts of this case? ) 23. See generally Getty Oil Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 845 S.W.2d 794, 804 (Tex. 1992) (holding that the additional-insured provision of a contract is a separate obligation from the indemnity provision of the same contract); Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, , 708 (Tex. 1987) (finding that an indemnity provision of a contract needed to expressly state it would not be responsible for another party s sole negligence within the four corners of the contract). 24. Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660, 662, 670 (Tex. 2008). ( [W]e examine the interplay between a contractual indemnity provision and a service contract s requirement to name an additional insured [and hold an] additional insured requirement in the service agreement fails to establish a separate and independent obligation for ensuring liability. ) 25. Id. at Id. at
5 2014] In Re Deepwater Horizon 5 and the umbrella policy insurer. 27 The insurer refused coverage to ATOFINA. 28 The insurer argued the indemnity clause in the service agreement expressly denied coverage for damages that resulted from ATOFINA s negligence, even though the insurance policy did not expressly limit coverage caused by ATOFINA s negligence when read alone. 29 The Texas Supreme Court found in favor of ATOFINA, focusing on the language of the umbrella policy alone because it was separate and independent from the service agreement. 30 The insurance policy controlled the scope of coverage because ATOFINA did not seek indemnity from Triple S, 31 the partner to the service agreement, but from the insurer. 32 The court also noted that Evanston Insurance could have protected itself through coverage-limiting language during drafting, but did not include such in the policy. 33 This separate-and-independent ruling in ATOFINA continues to be supported in Texas today 34 and should be upheld in response to the Fifth Circuit in In Re Deepwater Horizon. IV. SCOPE OF THE INSURANCE POLICY: ANALYSIS Since ATOFINA, Texas courts and courts applying Texas law have held that when an additional-insured seeks coverage from the insurer, the insurance policy itself determines the scope of insurance coverage, not the indemnity provision within a separate contract. 35 In Re Deepwater Horizon defendants, Transocean and Insurers, identify two arguments that provoked the Fifth Circuit to question the precedent and effect of ATOFINA in determining the extent of liability coverage for an additional insured. First, the defendant s argument that the coverage-limiting language employed by Transocean in the indemnity clause of the service agreement that prevents the insurance policy from providing broader coverage. Second, since the language of the insurance policy cannot be interpreted without reference to 27. Id. at Id. 29. Id. 30. Id. at Id. at Id. 33. See id. at 666 (stating that limiting-language was available to drafters if they chose to limit the policy from covering the additional insured s negligence). 34. See, e.g., Aubris Resources, LP v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 483, 488 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying Texas law, the court agreed that Texas looks to the insurance policy alone to determine the scope of coverage, not the service agreement); Pasadena Refining Sys., Inc. v. McCraven, No CV, No CV, 2012 WL , at *17 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2012, no pet.) (finding the Texas Supreme Court has held, and this court agrees, that they must look to the insurance policy to determine what coverage is applicable to an additional insured). 35. Id.
6 6 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Fall 2014 the service agreement, it is unreasonable to treat the insurance policy as a completely independent, separate contract capable of controlling the scope of coverage. 36 The next paragraphs show that the defendants arguments fail to negate the application of ATOFINA s separate-and-independent holding. A. The Service Agreement Indemnity Provision Coverage-Limiting Language Distinguishing ATOFINA from their case, the defendants first argue the insurance policies do not extend broad coverage to all surface-oil pollution because the language in the indemnity provision of the service agreement is more limited than that of Triple S s in ATOFINA. 37 The defendants distinguish the broad language of Triple S s service agreement that insures ATOFINA on each of Triple S s policies 38 from Transocean s service agreement, which limits insurance to only the liabilities Transocean took. 39 They contend that the narrow and coverage-limiting language in the service agreement determines what liabilities Transocean absorbs which then determines what the Insurers are responsible for whereas Triple S s language in the service agreement allows the separate insurance policies to guide the scope of coverage because of the service agreement s inclusive language. 40 While the defendants point to a valid difference in the language between the two service agreements indemnity provisions, they misapply ATOFINA s separate-and-independent rule. The defendants improperly argue that the degree of inclusivity or exclusivity in the language of the indemnity provision of the service agreement determines whether the insurance policies are separate and independent, when it is clear ATOFINA defines separate and independent based on whom the additional insured is seeking indemnity or coverage from. 41 The key to determine the scope of liability is to identify whom the additional insured is bringing the claim against, revealing which contract controls the scope of coverage either the service agreement between the contractor and the property owner or the insurance policy extending coverage from the insurer to the additional insured In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir. 2013). 37. Id. at Id. at In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d at 498; see discussion supra Part II (regarding Transocean s indemnification of BP s subsurface oil pollution). 40. Id. 41. Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660, 664 (2008); see also discussion supra Part III. 42. Id.
7 2014] In Re Deepwater Horizon 7 ATOFINA further discredits the defendant s argument that coveragelimiting language in the indemnity provision of the service agreement should control the scope of the insurance coverage because ATOFINA specifically noted that if the parties intended to limit the scope of coverage in the insurance policy, there was language available to the parties to achieve that goal. 43 Here, there is no such language in the insurance policies. 44 Consequently, the defendants argument does not take the court outside the holding in ATOFINA. BP is an additional insured and its claim is brought to hold the Insurers responsible under the insurance policies. Therefore, the policies should be read separate and independent from the service agreement, leaving only the insurance policies to determine the scope of coverage. B. The Policies The defendants second point is that the language of each insurance policy refers back to the service agreement, requiring that the documents be read together to determine the scope of liability; without referring outside the insurance policy, there would be no named additional insured. 45 In Re Deepwater s policies state a requirement for an Insured Contract between Transocean and another unidentified party as a condition to extend additional-insured coverage. 46 The defendants argue the court must refer to the service agreement for the policies scope because the policies require a contract to exist for the purpose of identifying the additional insured justifying the use of the service agreement to set the scope of coverage. 47 Texas courts consider minor references to another contract as merely placeholder language that does not create an interdependent relationship between the service agreement and the insurance policy; therefore, the defendants argument has no significant impact on the separate-andindependent rule. 48 The insurance policies requirement that Transocean have an Insured Contract is no different from the service agreement requirement that BP be listed as an additional insured. 49 Both of these 43. Id. at In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d at 498, 500 (noting that BP argued that the insurance coverage should be provided to the extent as is afforded by this policy, which would include above-surface and subsurface pollution without any coverage-limiting language). 45. Id. at Id. 47. Id. 48. Pasadena Refining Sys., Inc. v. McCraven, No CV, No CV, 2012 WL , at *14 16 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2012, no pet.); see also ATOFINA, 256 S.W.3d at See generally In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d at 499; see also supra discussion Part IV.A.
8 8 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Fall 2014 brief statement[s]... merely evince the holder s status under the contract. 50 Current Texas case law supports treating the policy as a separate, independent scope of coverage even when placeholder terms require a brief reference to the service agreement to acquire their definition. 51 Regardless of placeholder language in the insurance policy, the service agreement and the insurance policies are separate and independent documents; thus, ATOFINA would still apply. V. CONTRA PROFERENTEM VERSUS THE SOPHISTICATED-INSURED EXCEPTION The Fifth Circuit asks the Texas Supreme Court to consider the effects of two policy arguments on insurer liability in contract disputes: contra proferentem and the sophisticated-insured exception. 52 Contra proferentem is a tie break[ing] device that resolves all contractual ambiguities in favor of the insured and against the insurer. 53 Texas courts have applied contra proferentem in an insurer-liability context when dealing with unclear contract language. 54 Identical to the reasoning used by ATOFINA, 55 contra proferentem applies even when the insurer offers an objectively more sensible interpretation, as long as both are reasonable. 56 Though the Texas Supreme Court has not expressly identified the connection between ATOFINA s application and contra proferentem, they are essentially one and the same both protect the non-drafting party by construing ambiguities against the drafter ATOFINA, 256 S.W.3d at McCraven, 2012 WL , at * Placeholder language of both the insurance policy and the service agreement requires the court to look at both documents to determine who the additional-insured party is; however, the scope of the insurance policy is found only by looking at the insurance policy alone. Id. The court had to refer to the service agreement to determine who was covered by the insurance policy; however, the policy still controlled the scope of coverage, even though the additional-insured provision expressly links its coverage to the indemnification and... [its] additional insured status is triggered to the extent [the additional insured] is indemnified by [owner or contractor] in the terms of the contract. Id. (emphasis added). 52. In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d at Hazel Glenn Bleh, Reassessing the Sophisticated Insured Exception, 39 TORT TRIAL & INS. PRAC. L.J. 85, 91 (2003). 54. SMI Realty Mgmt. Corp. v. Underwriters at Lloyd s, London, 179 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (relying on the doctrine of contra proferentem); Evergreen Nat l Indem. Co. v. Tan It All, Inc., 111 S.W.3d 669, 677 (Tex. App. Austin 2003, no pet.) (applying contra proferentem in an insured-insurer context). 55. ATOFINA, 256 S.W.3d at 668 (construing ambiguities in favor of the insured when it offers a reasonable interpretation, regardless if the insurer offers a more reasonable interpretation). 56. Evergreen, 111 S.W.3d at See, e.g., In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d at 499.
9 2014] In Re Deepwater Horizon 9 The purpose of contra proferentem is to protect the third-party additional insured from the disadvantage of unequal bargaining power. 58 Third parties to an insurance policy contract are not at the same advantage as a direct-insured party because typically they are not directly involved in the bargaining and drafting process. 59 Without equal bargaining power, the additional insured must be cautious of certain losses, such as a lapse of insurance, inability to choose legal representation, and a lack of control over the drafting process. 60 An alternative policy argument is the sophisticated-insured exception, which is a defense in contract disputes between informed businesspersons capable of equally bargaining for and interpreting the contract, such as large companies with in-house counsel. 61 This exception requires the contract to be taken as it is written, without any favor to the insured. 62 Texas courts sparingly apply this exception to insurer insured relationships involving business-minded individuals. 63 Some have found the sophisticated-insured exception unfairly prejudices insured parties by assuming capacity to contract based on externalities such as their wealth or size, but it fails to consider whether the insured had an equal part in the drafting process. 64 The Texas Supreme Court should apply contra proferentem as the primary exception to ambiguous contract disputes and only apply the sophisticated-insured exception under limited circumstances. By holding that contra proferentem is a defense to these types of cases, the Texas 58. Bleh, supra note 53, at 90; PHILIP L. BRUNER ET AL., Risk Allocation Principles as Applied to Contract Interpretation: Consequences of Knowing Other Party s Meaning Consequences of Drafting Ambiguous Language: Contra Proferentem Rule, in 1 BRUNER & O CONNOR CONSTRUCTION LAW 3:28 (2013) (noting that insurance contracts have been considered to be contracts that are negotiated unfairly). 59. See generally Bleh, supra note 53, at 90 (stating that most courts wrongly presume that the parties are equally informed in the contracting process); see also ROBERT N. SAYLER ET AL., Sophisticated Insured Exception, in 7 BUS. & COM. LITIG. FED. CTS. 79:41 (3d ed. 2013) (stating that contra proferentem protects an insured, no matter its size or sophistication because the insurer drafts the contract). 60. See S. Michael Cooper, Considering Additional Insureds (sic) Coverage, RISK MANAGEMENT, 1, 2 3, (last visited Feb. 26, 2014). 61. Scott G. Johnson, Resolving Ambiguities in Insurance Policy Language: The Contra Proferentem Doctrine and Use of Extrinsic Evidence, 33 WTR BRIEF 33, 37 (2004) (noting that examples of business-minded individuals include ones with in-house legal departments, risk management departments, and substantial resources. ). 62. Bleh, supra note 53, at See, e.g., Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Bomer, 959 S.W.2d 673, 677 (Tex. App. Austin 1997, pet. denied) (stating the insurer was a sophisticated-insured and should have known not to enter into an illegal side agreement with the insurer). But cf. Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 133 (Tex. 2010) (noting that ambiguities in a contract are construed in favor of the insured, however there is no reference to a sophisticatedinsured exception even though the court determined the contract was not in fact ambiguous). 64. Bleh, supra note 53, at 87, 93.
10 10 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Fall 2014 Supreme Court would encourage insurance providers to carefully draft, take more responsibility, and insure against risks they may incur on behalf of their clients. 65 While the sophisticated-insured exception may help to facilitate quicker litigation over contract disputes between businesses, it should only be applied when the parties equally participate in the bargaining process. 66 VI. CONCLUSION The Texas Supreme Court should answer questions proposed by the Fifth Circuit in the affirmative: The insurance policy alone determines the scope of coverage when it is separate and independent from the service agreement s indemnity provision and contra proferentem should be a primary defense to protect unequal bargainers when the language of the insurance policy is unclear. Applying this to In Re Deepwater, the Fifth Circuit should find BP s oil-spill pollution coverage is determined by the insurance policies alone because BP is bringing the suit against the insurers for coverage, not Transocean. Additionally, any ambiguities should be interpreted in BP s favor as an additional insured. Upholding ATOFINA will encourage thoughtful participation of all contracting parties in the bargaining process when they agree to insure potential costly liabilities. Finally, this will encourage the use of thorough coverage-limiting terms to prevent contracting for non-negotiated risks. Laura J. Thetford 65. See In re Deepwater, No c/w , MDL No. 2179, 2011 WL , at *24 (E.D. Louisiana, Nov. 15, 2011) ( Insurers have to know what risks they are insuring to be able to appropriately calculate the premiums they must collect. ). 66. Bleh, supra note 53, at 92 ( Thus, it is hardly a surprise that insurers should advance arguments such as the sophisticated-insured exception to avoid [contra proferentem] rules in litigation. ).
Will Deepwater Horizon Change a Long Standing Rule of Law? In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338 (5 th Cir. 2013, withdrawn on r hrg). r In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491 (5 th Cir. 2013). ACCIDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0670 444444444444 IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT
Case: 13-51027 Document: 00513074445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant United States
Adding the Insurance Run: Coverage Lessons from Deepwater Horizon Edward M. Grauman email@example.com 512-391-8025 Introduction BP leased rig from TO under drilling contract. Undersea oil spill led to
ABA ICLC 2014 Conference Indemnity, AI, and the BP Oil Spill Tracy Alan Saxe Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Hamden, CT Celia B. Keniry Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Hamden, CT A common misconception regarding
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0670 444444444444 IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT
ACC Houston Chapter Meeting Indemnities and Insurance: Managing Risks Via Contracts in the Post-Macondo World April 9, 2013 Panelists Lisa Brown Managing Counsel, Oxy Permian Former outside counsel. Received
Thursday, March 6, 2014 Houston, TX 2:45 4:00 p.m. LESSONS LEARNED? WHAT S NEXT? Presented by David B. Goodwin Partner Covington & Burling LLP The Deepwater Horizon insurance litigation persists and continues
Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Houston, TX 9:30 10:45 a.m. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DEEPWATER HORIZON SPILL Moderated by Speakers David Goodwin Partner Covington & Burling LLP John M. Elsley Of Counsel Royston,
FALL 2013 NEWSLETTER INSURANCE LAW UPDATE By Jennifer Kelley THE FIFTH CIRCUIT In re Deepwater Horizon v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., 728 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. La. 2013). In Deepwater Horizon,
Case 3:12-cv-00341 Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION PAC-VAN, INC., Plaintiff, VS. CHS, INC. D/B/A CHS COOPERATIVES,
Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Houston, TX 1:30 2:45 p.m. DEEPWATER HORIZON INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE LESSONS LEARNED Presented by Julia M. (Adams) Palmer Member Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C. The Ranger v. Transocean
Marine Insurance Day October 5, 2012 Additional Insureds & Marine Insurance Joe Grasso and Michael Thompson 1 Agenda General Principles Case Studies Takeaways and Q&A 2 Named Insureds v. Additional Insureds
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00647-CV ACCELERATED WEALTH, LLC and Accelerated Wealth Group, LLC, Appellants v. LEAD GENERATION AND MARKETING, LLC, Appellee From
COVERAGE FOR DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FAULTY WORKMANSHIP: EXCLUSIONS J(5) AND J(6) R. Douglas Rees Co-author Tara L. Sohlman Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 08-0073 444444444444 PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. REGAN KELLEY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed December 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01546-CV OKLAHOMA SURETY COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0014p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FORREST CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
Case: 12-13210 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13210 D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
Case: 15-10510 Document: 00513424063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2016 Lyle W.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
Case: 14-31321 Document: 00513278828 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 19, 2015 IN RE:
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
Affirmed and Opinion filed January 13, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-98-00234-CV UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant V. UNDERWRITERS AT INTEREST and STEVEN RICHARD BISHOP,
Contractual Risk Allocation in a Post- Macondo Environment Michael A. Golemi William W. Pugh Willis 2012 North America Energy Conference May 16, 2012 A Professional Law Corporation New Orleans Lafayette
Other Insurance and the CGL Policy by Craig F. Stanovich Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers, LLC April 2009 We usually make sure our client has purchased its own CGL policy a policy on which it is a named
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1944 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff Appellant, PORTAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0776 444444444444 CHAPMAN CUSTOM HOMES, INC., AND MICHAEL B. DUNCAN, TRUSTEE OF THE M. B. DUNCAN SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST, PETITIONERS, v. DALLAS PLUMBING
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 5, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00443-CV CLINT SIMON D/B/A SHERLOCK PEST AND D/B/A SHERLOCK SPEC, AND CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 firstname.lastname@example.org Obtaining Indemnity Through Effective
Opinion issued April 19, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00361-CV FREDDIE L. WALKER, Appellant V. RISSIE OWENS, PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND
Case: 13-31130 Document: 00512847813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 24, 2014 Lyle
Survey Says: The Feud Over Insurance and Indemnity Provisions in Business Contracts Indemnity and Insurance Provisions in Commercial Contracts Kenneth M. Gorenberg Stefan R. Dandelles Indemnity and insurance
Case: 13-20341 Document: 00512541689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 94-41244. Jerry B. HODGEN; Bobby Sue Hodgen, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, FOREST OIL CORPORATION; Ronald J. Doucet, Defendants-Third
Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Southwest Nut Company, Inc., et al Doc. 1107470457 Case: 13-11672 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
Jesse R. Pierce Jesse Pierce has more than thirty-five years of litigation experience and has tried many types of cases in state and federal courts of Texas and other states. He specializes in civil trials
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PUBLIC PAYPHONE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-2349 WAL-MART STORES, INC.
A&E Briefings Structuring risk management solutions Spring 2012 Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability J. Kent Holland, J.D. ConstructionRisk, LLC Professional consultants are judged
Recent Developments in Insurance Coverage Disputes Exclusions Gone Awry: Misinterpretations of the Contractual Liability and Faulty Workmanship Exclusions Pose a Threat to the Construction Industry Jeffrey
Deepwater Horizon BP Well Blowout Contractual Indemnities/Statutory Liability/Effect on US Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Industry Ben H. Welmaker, Jr. Partner Baker & McKenzie Houston, Texas 77002-2746 email@example.com
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOUG HAMBELTON, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CANAL
SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
2014 IL App (1st) 133931 SECOND DIVISION September 9, 2014 No. 1-13-3931 MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. v. ) ) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction, and Opinion filed August 20, 2009. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-08-00925-CV ATLAS GULF-COAST, INC. D/B/A ATLAS
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00350-CV 3109 Props, L.L.C.; Detour, Inc.; and Richard Linklater, Appellants v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
Clear as Mud: Legislating the Definition of Occurrence in a CGL Policy Seth M. Friedman 1 Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, P.C. Atlanta, GA One of the biggest issues affecting coverage litigation for construction
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
Indemnification Clauses, Part 1* Discussion from a/e ProNet's Risk Management and Contract Guide J. Kent Holland, Jr., Esq. Issue: Indemnification provisions in contracts may require the design professional
BANKING LAW JOURNAL by Bankruptcy Code Section 541. That section provides, in pertinent part: The commencement of a case under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title creates an estate. Such estate is comprised
Case: 09-30299 Document: 0051998279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D January 7, 2010 Summary
B P O i l D i s a s t e r : R e s t o r a t i o n & R e c o v e r y Claims & Litigation Overview SEPTEMBER 2014 Thousands of lawsuits have been filed as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. These
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 firstname.lastname@example.org Construction Defect Coverage Recap For 1st Quarter
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JOHN R. OBENCHAIN BRIAN M. KUBICKI Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEYS
Case: 14-40512 Document: 00513239934 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 21, 2015 MARTIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
Case 3:09-cv-00748-B Document 23 Filed 09/23/09 Page 1 of 8 PageID 649 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ESTATE OF JOHNNY FISHER, Dec d, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 91 3941. INSTITUTE OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Appellant. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 email@example.com The Significance Of Travelers V. Bailey Law360,
VIRGINIA Page Insurance Authorization Status... 1 Contract Enforceability by Unauthorized Insurers... 1 Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions... 1 Enforceability of Choice of Law Provisions... 2 Enforceability
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 09-3874 Brake Landscaping & Lawncare, Inc., * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District
Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
---------------- Office of Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service memorandum CC:FIP:B04:PRENO-136486-06 JEGlover date: to: from: Manager, EO Technical Group 3 T:EO:RA:T:3 Robert C. Harper, Jr. Donald J.
HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNITY, SUBROGATION AND ADDITIONAL INSURED INSURANCE IN TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS By James W. Bryan Nexsen Pruet P.L.L.C. Greensboro, North Carolina 336-373-1600 firstname.lastname@example.org