September 26, 2020

Volume X, Number 270

September 25, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Fifth Circuit Seeks Texas Supreme Court Input in Deepwater Horizon Insurance Coverage Dispute

On August 29, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its opinion of earlier this year that had awarded “additional insured” coverage to BP American Production Company and affiliates (“BP”) under Transocean Holding, Inc.’s (“Transocean”) umbrella insurance policies. In re Deepwater Horizon, Case No. 12-30230, Slip Op. (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2013) ( “Slip Op.”). In its place, the Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: (1) whether BP is covered as an additional insured, based solely on the language of the insurance policies; and (2) whether the contra proferentem doctrine of requiring insurance policies to be interpreted against insurers and in favor of insureds applies to sophisticated parties. Id. at 14. The Supreme Court of Texas accepted the certified questions for review on September 6, 2013. See http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2013/sep/090613.htm.

This latest development is part of an ongoing insurance coverage dispute that followed the sinking of a Transocean offshore drilling unit in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. See Slip Op. at 4. Under a drilling contract between BP and Transocean, Transocean assumed responsibility for spills on or above the surface of the water, while BP assumed responsibility for subsurface spills. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338, 343 n. 5 (5th Cir. Mar. 2013), withdrawn by 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18087. However, under a separate part of the drilling contract, Transocean was required to maintain insurance coverage for its liability, and name BP as an additional insured. Id. at 342.

In its earlier opinion in March 2013, the Fifth Circuit considered the scope of the insurance policies that Transocean obtained to comply with the drilling contract, as well as the impact of the drilling contract on those policies. Id. at 344-50. Transocean and the insurers argued that coverage under the insurance policies was limited to the liabilities Transocean had assumed under the drilling contract, while BP argued that only the insurance policies—and not the drilling contract—controlled the issue of coverage. 710 F.3d at 342-43.

Applying Texas law, the Fifth Circuit initially concluded that only the policy language should be considered. See id. at 348. In an earlier case, the Texas Supreme Court had held that an oil refinery owner was an additional insured under a contractor’s insurance policy, declining to look outside the policy to the underlying service contract to define the scope of coverage. See id. at 344-45 (citingEvanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660, 665 (Tex. 2008)). The Fifth Circuit found the contractual provisions from the earlier Texas case “materially identical” to those in the drilling contract and therefore looked solely to the language of the Transocean policies, finding that they provided coverage to BP. Id. at 349-50.

Upon reconsideration, the Fifth Circuit decided to withdraw its earlier opinion. Slip Op. at 2. The court noted that the language of the contract in the earlier Texas case was arguably broader than that in the drilling contract, and therefore potentially distinguishable. Slip Op., at 11-12. Under this narrow reading of the drilling contract, the additional insured and indemnity provisions could be said to be “inextricable,” dictating that the insurance policies be read in conjunction with the drilling contract. Id. at 12.

The Fifth Circuit acknowledged that if the insurance policies must be read in light of the drilling contract, then a second question arises regarding the impact of the contra proferentem doctrine. Id.at 12-14. Contra proferentem is a common rule used by courts for interpreting insurance policies, requiring that they be construed against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. Id. at 12-13. This doctrine rests on the fact that most insurance policies are drafted by the insurers without any negotiation by the insured. See id. at 13. However, some jurisdictions allow an exception for sophisticated insureds, which presumably have elevated bargaining power. Id. Although Texas has never previously recognized such an exception to the contra proferentem rule, the Fifth Circuit believed that this was an ideal circumstance for consideration. Id. at 13-14. It therefore referred both issues to the Texas Supreme Court.

The outcome of the Texas Supreme Court’s decision could have impacts beyond the Deepwater Horizon matter. Contracts providing for indemnification and requiring insurance coverage are common not only in the oil and gas industry, but in the business world generally. Whether and under what circumstances an indemnification agreement might affect the scope of additional insured coverage are therefore important questions. Permitting consideration of underlying contracts could also impact related coverage issues, such as which insurance policy will provide coverage first when the additional insured has a separate policy in its own name. Further, the doctrine of contra proferentem is often influential in determining coverage disputes. Commercial insurance coverage disputes invariably involve substantial sums; if the Texas Supreme Court recognizes a “sophisticated insured” exception, it could shift the balance between corporate policyholders and their insurers in those disputes.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume III, Number 253

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Nicole B. Weinstein Insurance Recovery & Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond New York, NY
Principal

Nicole B. Weinstein helps clients minimize and eliminate liability for contaminated sites in litigation, and to recover insurance proceeds across industries.

Nicole's practice focuses on insurance recovery and environmental litigation. She excels at identifying avenues of defense and coverage, and in distilling complicated issues into understandable terms.

Nicole has been interested in environmental matters for as long as she can remember, and has always enjoyed thinking through complex challenges. She planned to become an environmental lawyer as a student, and after...

212-702-5416
John H. Kazanjian Insurance Coverage Attorney Beveridge & Diamond New York, NY
Office Managing Principal

John is one of the top-rated insurance coverage lawyers in New York, with over forty years of experience in complex civil and commercial litigation.

He helps business clients recover the insurance dollars they purchased to protect themselves from critical loss exposure when their insurance companies resist paying. John applies his mastery of insurance coverage law and a range of disciplines for each underlying matter, including environmental law, toxic tort law, and securities law, to maximize recovery.

John advises policyholders in assessing the scope of their insurance coverage and negotiating policy language. He counsels clients in preparing insurance claims and in determining whether to pursue the settlement or litigation of disputed coverage claims.

He has vast experience in evaluating and negotiating settlements with insurance companies, including claims resolutions through mediation or arbitration, no matter the coverage or policy type—from comprehensive general liability, first-party property and business interruption, to errors and omissions, directors and officers, fiduciary liability, employment practices, crime, fidelity, Bermuda form, and environmental, cyber, and other specialty coverages.

Policyholder Clients

John represents corporate and governmental policyholders seeking insurance recovery for bodily injury, property damage, financial loss, and other alleged liabilities and possesses broad industry experience. His clients include chemical, energy, coatings, tire, building products, pulp and paper, mining, recycling, electronics, technology, beverage, pharmaceutical, and medical device manufacturers, as well as hotel operators, franchisors, home builders, property developers and owners, financial services companies, transportation and logistics companies, universities, and municipalities.

His experience also includes specialty policies designed to cover pollution cleanup and liability, such as environmental cost-cap and site liability policies, as well as cyber liability policies. He has represented clients seeking insurance recoveries for domestic and international liabilities and has substantial experience in insurance issues relating to mergers and acquisitions.

Litigation

John has served as lead counsel for policyholders in significant litigation involving insurance coverage for environmental, product, toxic tort, employment, securities, fiduciary, construction defect, and class action liabilities and for punitive damages. He has developed strategies to manage these cases cost-effectively and bring about their earliest possible settlement or resolution, including trial, if necessary, through appeal.

He has argued vital coverage issues before the highest courts of several states and has represented numerous industry and policyholder groups as amici curiae in federal and state appellate courts.

A collaborative problem solver, John is also called upon for his general litigation and dispute resolution skills, including mediation and arbitration.

In addition to insurance coverage disputes, he represents manufacturers in product liability, toxic tort, and mass liability cases. Other matters John has handled over his distinguished career include antitrust, trade regulation, intellectual property, banking, business torts, securities, commodities, contracts, construction, defamation, international, real estate, admiralty, and maritime disputes.

212-702-5420