First phase of BP spill trial ends
Just days before the third anniversary of the Gulf oil spill, the first phase of a trial to determine if BP or its partners are guilty of gross negligence in the disaster came to a close on Wednesday.
April 18, 2013 at 07:43 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Just days before the third anniversary of the Gulf oil spill, the first phase of a trial to determine if BP or its partners are guilty of gross negligence in the disaster came to a close on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier ordered an 80-day period in which to determine findings before moving on to the second phase of the trial, which will determine damages in the spill that killed 11 people and dumped 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The U.S. government, along with people and businesses affected by the spill, brought the suit. If Barbier determines, following the trial's first phase, that BP or its co-defendants acted with reckless indifference or wanton misconduct, the three companies could see a four-fold increase in the Clean Water Act penalties for which they are liable.
BP on Wednesday pointed the finger at its drilling partners—Halliburton Co., which cemented the Macondo well and Transocean Ltd., which operated the exploded Deepwater Horizon oil rig. On Wednesday, expert witnesses for BP argued that the cement Halliburton used to plug the well was unstable and needed remixing before use. Another witness testified that Transocean's rig captain failed to activate the well's blowout preventer, even though he had between four and eight minutes after the start of the disaster in which to do so, Thomson Reuters reports.
BP is already on the hook for significant damages connected to the spill. A settlement with individuals and businesses that suffered economic or medical damages in the wake of the spill will cost the company at least $8.5 billion. That amount could grow, the oil company said last month, because the claims that are being paid out are higher and more numerous than expected.
For ongoing InsideCounsel coverage of the BP oil spill, see:
BP settlement costs rise again
BP enters plea in Gulf oil spill criminal case
BP will pay $4.5 billion in Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement
BP, plaintiffs ask judge to approve $7.8 billion oil spill settlement
Feds to pursue gross negligence claims in BP oil spill case
Transocean GC resigns, effective immediately
Just days before the third anniversary of the Gulf oil spill, the first phase of a trial to determine if BP or its partners are guilty of gross negligence in the disaster came to a close on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge
The U.S. government, along with people and businesses affected by the spill, brought the suit. If Barbier determines, following the trial's first phase, that BP or its co-defendants acted with reckless indifference or wanton misconduct, the three companies could see a four-fold increase in the Clean Water Act penalties for which they are liable.
BP on Wednesday pointed the finger at its drilling partners—Halliburton Co., which cemented the Macondo well and Transocean Ltd., which operated the exploded Deepwater Horizon oil rig. On Wednesday, expert witnesses for BP argued that the cement Halliburton used to plug the well was unstable and needed remixing before use. Another witness testified that Transocean's rig captain failed to activate the well's blowout preventer, even though he had between four and eight minutes after the start of the disaster in which to do so, Thomson Reuters reports.
BP is already on the hook for significant damages connected to the spill. A settlement with individuals and businesses that suffered economic or medical damages in the wake of the spill will cost the company at least $8.5 billion. That amount could grow, the oil company said last month, because the claims that are being paid out are higher and more numerous than expected.
For ongoing InsideCounsel coverage of the BP oil spill, see:
BP settlement costs rise again
BP enters plea in Gulf oil spill criminal case
BP will pay $4.5 billion in Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement
BP, plaintiffs ask judge to approve $7.8 billion oil spill settlement
Feds to pursue gross negligence claims in BP oil spill case
Transocean GC resigns, effective immediately
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250