Uh that is not news. He mis read it but BP , IN CHARGE, did not check and went ahead with the Drilling.
Why are you arguing with me, the Insurance company said BP not insured, not me. The Judge cannot make the uninsured become insured lol. Just like you cannot be in charge and something goes wrong and suddenly it was everybody else in charge.
Court cannot AWARD ANYTHING, simply said BP can contact the Insurance company. But Transocean insurance company says no coverage for BP.
The insurance companies opposed BP’s attempt to access Transocean’s coverage. “BP is mentioned nowhere in any of the policies,” lawyers for Lloyd’s and the other excess carriers said in a July filing with the appeals court.
BP asked for “an expansive and unreasonable interpretation of the policies now because it was unprepared for and did not intend to insure against such extraordinary losses,” the lawyers said.
But the Insurance company says BP is not insured by them....Court cannot do anything about that. The ruling only helps if the Insurance comapny is agreeable.
Bottom line here was BP was in charge, and that is going to be the head line next few months. You can argue all you want but it's like if you goto Wendy's and get a bad Burger, the Burger Flipper says the burger was examined by the manager before sent out, the manager comes back and starts blaming everybody in the joint when he approved the burger to be sent out? It's not going to work.
Lol bp needs rig more than other way around. There are very few deep water drillers like Rig but there are many oil companies.
As for insurance, bp might have access but the insurance company says no.
You can think that if you want but it doesn't seem to be working now does it. BP is getting from the plaintiffs, from the Government and from transocean, next up , Halliburton
Transocean claimed BP’s misrepresentations about the volume of the spill “constitutes a core breach” of the Deepwater Horizon’s drilling contract. That breach, company attorneys said in the filing, “as a matter of law nullifies BP’s defenses and limitations to damages under the contract.”
Transocean seeks recovery of direct damages, including “loss of profits and loss of the vessel and its equipment and reimbursement of settlements paid to or on behalf of its employees,” according to the filing.
Why is BP fighting Transocean and Hal? That makes zero sense. If anything BP should be trying to get them on their side.
Look, if I eat something at Chili, I am going to sue Chilis and not the landlord of the building or who they bought the food from. It's that simple.
Vs RIG, HAL and Plaintiffs...
I don't see how they can every prove anything vs RIG or HAL so BP need to settle with them first and focus on the Plaintiffs.
Because right now, everybody on the stand is KILLING BP...
BP was in charge. If you goto a restaurant and get food poisoning and die, does your family sue the waiter who brought the food or the people managing the restaurant?