In re Deepwater Horizon

470 S.W.3d 452 (2015)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Deepwater Horizon

Texas Supreme Court
470 S.W.3d 452 (2015)

Facts

Transocean (defendant) owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore-drilling platform located in the Gulf of Mexico. Transocean entered into an oil-drilling contract with BP p.l.c. (plaintiff), the oil-field developer. Under the terms of the drilling contract, Transocean assumed the risk for any above-surface pollution, and BP assumed the risk for subsurface pollution. The drilling contract required Transocean to indemnify BP for the liabilities it assumed in the contract. Transocean’s insurance policies did not name BP as an additional-insured party but did provide for additional-insured coverage if required by contractual obligation. After an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon, it caught fire and eventually sank, killing 11 crew members. As a result of the accident, a subsurface discharge of millions of gallons of oil occurred, resulting in tremendous ecological damage. Numerous legal claims arising from the disaster were filed. In one suit, BP made a demand for coverage against Transocean’s insurers (the insurers) (defendants) as an additional-insured party on Transocean’s insurance policies. Transocean intervened in the suit as a defendant with the insurers. The insurers and Transocean claimed that BP was only an additional-insured party for above-surface pollution liabilities and therefore not entitled to coverage for the Deepwater Horizon incident, which involved subsurface pollution. The district court agreed with the insurers and Transocean and granted summary judgment in their favor. BP appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the district court, holding that the insurance policies did not place such a limitation on BP’s additional-insured status. On rehearing, the court of appeals withdrew its decision and certified the question of BP’s coverage under Transocean’s policies for this incident to the Texas Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Guzman, J.)

Dissent (Johnson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership