Allen Burditt II and Sarah Maunee S. Burditt - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

          Subsequently, the fourth amended petition alleged that                      
          “plaintiffs”--that is, both petitioner and CRI--suffered mental             
          anguish, torment, and heartache.  Lindsey filed a motion to                 
          strike the fourth amended petition because it was filed 22 days             
          late under the trial court's docket control order.  The trial               
          court granted this motion and struck the fourth amended petition            
          in January 1992.                                                            
               In the second and third amended petitions, CRI and                     
          petitioner claimed $10 million in actual damages and $5 million             
          in punitive damages.                                                        
               Lindsey, and CRI and petitioner, retained expert witnesses             
          to give testimony regarding the economic damages resulting from             
          the well blowout.  An expert for CRI and petitioner estimated the           
          total losses as a result of damage to the well and lost                     
          production capacity at a present value of more than $3 million in           
          March of 1991.  An expert for Lindsey concluded that the well had           
          never been commercially viable.  No experts were retained to                
          testify with respect to personal injuries of petitioner.                    
          However, CRI and petitioner did take the deposition of at least             
          five eyewitnesses to Halliburton's actions at the blowout.                  
          Neither Lindsey or Halliburton deposed petitioner.                          
               On or about April 24, 1989, Halliburton served CRI and                 
          petitioner with interrogatories, to which they jointly responded.           
          The interrogatories and responses included the following:                   





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