Texas Supreme Court Holds BP Not Entitled to Full Coverage under Transocean Policies
February 24th, 2015 by Exigis Media
EXIGIS recognizes insurance policies and the sensitivities behind its wording. Having ‘Additional Insured’ wording and ‘Waivers of Subrogation’ in addition to Certificates of Insurance make a huge difference when it boils down to what is being covered and who is taking fault. A perfect example of this can be found in the case ‘Texas Supreme Court Holds BP Not Entitled to Full Coverage under Transocean Policies’- where a dispute between insurance wording and consistency will ultimately determine the appropriated costs from the infamous BP oil spill.
“Companies need to be careful to use clear drafting and to insure that the policy and underlying contract are consistent with each other.”
About the Contributors:
Jack Carnegie is a litigation and appellate Partner in Strasburger’s Energy Section. He argued and won Evanston Ins. v. Atofina Petrochemicalsand Getty v. INA, some of the Texas Supreme Court’s seminal decisions on additional insured provisions.
Kelly Hunsaker Leonard represents clients in a wide variety of civil litigation matters, with a focus on complex commercial disputes.