Skip to comments.Transocean tries to limit liability for sunken rig
Posted on 05/13/2010 11:04:05 AM PDT by Wolfie
Transocean tries to limit liability for sunken rig
Company plans to cite an 1851 law for a very modern event
NEW YORK - The company that owns the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig said Thursday it will petition a federal court in Houston to cap its overall liability from the incident at less than $27 million.
Transocean Ltd. expects to receive $560 million in insurance money from the loss of the Deepwater Horizon. If court approves the liability limit, Transocean would be left with about $533 million, almost enough to cover the company's original revenue expectations over a three-year contract with BP PLC.
BP leases the well that's now spewing 210,000 gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico each day.
A spokesman for the Swiss company said the company will cite an 1851 law that says the owner of a sunken vessel is liable only for its value after the accident.
The liability limit would cap the amount that Transocean would be forced to pay if it loses any of the numerous lawsuits related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The company also may be able to delay other proceedings for years while a judge determines the size of Transocean's liability, said Keith Hall, a New Orleans lawyer who represents oil and gas companies.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
good for the company, they have already lost a billion dollar oil rig.
I don’t think so. Until that hole is plugged you are going to pay for it. It’s an ongoing event doing damage every day.
Maritime/admiralty/ocean salvage laws are among the most arcane in the legal world but have roots that go back much further than 1851. TransOcean may have a strong legal case but the court of public opinion, as stirred up by “Don’t Drill Anywhere, Ever” crowd, will be an entirely different matter.
BP is already legally responsible for clean-up and stopping the spill.
I’ve dedicated several decades worth of political activity to supporting pro-tort reform candidates but I’ve got to say no dice to Transocean.
They should pay and if it means they go out of business then it will teach the companies that come in to follow them to be more responsible and actually follow safety procedures.
And what did the fisherman, AL and LA citizens and hotel owners lose by no fault of their own?
If at fault, Transocean must pay every single penny.
I wouldn't be so disagreeable except when momma governmint not only comes an enforces the clean up, but her court awards hugely profitable "damages" just like a lottery to "teach them boys a lesson," then I just wanna throw up!!!
(BLEEP) will still continue to happen, even when financially crippled corporations finally get around to producing gasoline, oil and plastics for you to get around in YOUR business!!!
in this case, Bleep didn’t just happen. Certain actions were taken which resulted in the blowout. And someone is liable for it.
Litigation is NOT justice anymore. It's a financial set-back for everyone involved at ANY level!!! (except lawyers)
Go buy a friggin' electric car, ride a bike, but DO NOT use anything that burns petroleum, natural gas or any product derived from them. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR LITIGIOUS MOUTHS ARE. SUE BABY, SUE.
No, just cut corners to save a few dollars and fill the oceans and beaches with oil, no big deal. People like you would be the first to run to a trial lawyer if this happened to you.
Only anti-American, bleeding heart liberals don't like this, right?
Naturally that is---you gonna sue GOD?
You misunderestimate me and the only thing I would "run to a trial lawyer for". If I could find one who could sue people for ignorance I "might be tempted".
Why are you posting a picture from July, 2008, and that’s not even from the Gulf spill? This is not happening on a large scale in the Gulf.
Forget the darling birds. Y'know, people are killed by autos every day. Do you want to ban autos?
Children die in fires every day. Do you want to ban natural gas?
People die in hospitals every day. Do you want to ban hospitals? Sometimes, it's from medical malpractice. Do you want to ban medicine? Or doctors?
People fall (and jump) from tall buildings. And tall bridges. Should we ban tall buildings and bridges?
In fact, people die from accidents all the time. Should we ban accidents?
Because that's what this was. An isolated accident that is unlikely to occur ever again. Even less so, now that it's happened once.
Yes, I know quite well that these arguments are all straw horses. Thus, specious.
But so is yours.
Petroleum exploration and production does not automatically equate to oil-drenched birds.