- 6 -
In the original petition, CRI alleged that Lindsey provided
defective equipment and services. CRI also claimed that
Lindsey's actions caused a blowout at the well, and as a result,
CRI (but not petitioner individually) suffered significant
economic damages. The petition did not state any claims against
Lindsey that were personal to petitioner. With respect to
Halliburton, however, the petition did assert claims that were
personal to petitioner. CRI and petitioner alleged that
Halliburton entered into an agreement to provide emergency
services at the well site and then ceased the performance of its
obligations under their agreement, thereby contributing to the
damage of the well. The petition claimed that these actions by
Halliburton caused both CRI and petitioner economic damages, and
in addition caused petitioner severe embarrassment and mental
anguish. CRI and petitioner subsequently filed first, second,
third, and fourth amended petitions in March 1989, January 1990,
September 1991, and October 1991, respectively. Mr. Burditt's
allegations in his personal capacity against Halliburton did not
change in the amended petitions. However, certain of the amended
petitions did contain new allegations of personal injury. In the
second and third amended petitions, an unidentified “plaintiff”--
that is, either petitioner or CRI--alleged a claim under the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act - Consumer Protection Act,
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code sec. 17.50 (Vernon 1989), against Lindsey.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011