Is there ANY proof that HAL or RIG did NOT follow BP's instructions on ANY part of the well
If so, and BP can document that they were having issues with HAL or RIG doing their job, with BP warning of issues and doing their best to make things right, than BP can't be grossly negligent. PLUS, if HAL or RIG did NOT follow instructions and did things BP ordered them not to do, with warnings and instructions for corrections to be made immediately, again, how is BP to blame?
Finally, even with contracts indemnifying companies, ignoring safety and orders with knowledge that issues can result, doesn't that void the indemnification(s)?
1. Your first point goes to phase I of the trial. If what you speculate was proven (HAL/RIG failed to follow orders), I think it can exonerate BP, but only to the extent BP didn't reasonably know HAL/RIG failed. Remember, BP legally had ultimate responsibility.
2. I don't think failures like that by the subcontractors negates indemnity. However, there's no indemnity for punitive damages that go against HAL/RIG, so if their conduct was bad enough BP won't have to indemnify it.
3. Keep in mind, even if BP was not grossly negligent for causing the blowout, I believe it can still be found grossly negligent if found to have intentionally concealed the flow rate causing most of the oil to gush. That's what is being considered in this first part of phase II.
Its so obvious I know all the facts since I follow it so close I think people should just trust me that this is really bad for BP and the damages will be way more that you thought. You will thank me later. Definitely a strong sell.
trust YOU? surely you gest. we know your bias and opinions. you are totally transparent. you are a BP hater. actually, it appears you are a hater in general. you hate anyone offering up information or opinions that don't fit your paradigms. trust YOU? lol.