Look like RIG is going on the offensive.
If you are a judge, with all the reports that have come out and you read this, what would be your reasoning for finding RIG at fault? RIG is in a very strong position here, I think it is BP that needs to pay RIG, not other way around.
However, BP signed a contract that agreed to “protect, release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless” Transocean, its drilling contractor, from “all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses ... judgments and awards of any kind of character, without limit and without regard to the cause or causes thereof”.
The contract specified that the indemnity held even in the event of gross negligence.
Guess that's why they're down over 4% today. Lawyers are expensive. They should just play nice and fall in line like the other companies. Then bp and RIG can shake hands and get back to doing business together.
You are misrepresenting the contract between BP and RIG.
It is virtually impossible to "sign away" all one's liability. People/businesses sometimes try to do it, having others sign statements claiming "complete indemnification" but it just DOES NOT hold up when challenged in court -- particularly if one tries to claim indemnification for things like "gross negligence" or "intentional acts."
RIG will lose. The company's lawyers know it too. The challenge is just a delaying tactic (and an attempt to "save face") putting up "a fight" to satiate poorly informed public shareholders.
RIG is the only game in town to go ultra harsh and ultra deep. SEADRILL is the other game in town. Do I really need to tell you what happens when Seadrill know BP cannot work with RIG and BP has no choice?
Son, many contracts claim, I should say over claim bemefits that any court will say bo too...they put em in the contract as" Just because"
for it to hold it would have to say BP would cover them if RIG failed to do the required saftey drills and the contract would have to include BP ordered safety alarms disabled and since BP order this then BP would cover RIG....
The over broad clause you posted would be meanless in court.
But even then the court would not absolve RIG for failing to do necessary maintainence,like making sure the alarms worked and crew properly trained...
The court will treat RIG as an adult not an baby and thus hold RIG accountable for adult irresponsibility even if someone else(BP) signed a contract saying they care for em like an baby.
collusion. pure and simple. don't think for one moment that Trans and RIG are not collaborating on a united defense. geez. of course they have worked out an agreement that holds each other harmless or perhaps one paid off the other before they attack BP. very common ploy.
How can RIG and SDRL be the ONLY game in town????????
You have been whining about this for months and while doing so have seen RIG fall quite a bit. I can see why you are frustrated but it isn't going to get a lot better any time soon.