- 9 -
On or about August 5, 1991, Halliburton filed a motion for
summary judgment against CRI. Halliburton asserted that the
indemnity agreement signed by Mr. Burditt, acting on CRI's
behalf, precluded CRI from holding Halliburton liable for damage
to CRI's property as a result of Halliburton's negligence or
strict liability. On September 19, 1991, the trial court granted
Halliburton's summary judgment motion against CRI, leaving only
petitioner's personal claims against Halliburton pending before
that court. Subsequently, CRI perfected an appeal of the order
granting Halliburton's motion for summary judgment. Oral
arguments with respect to the appeal were set for October 22,
1992.
On or about October 6, 1991, Lindsey filed a motion for
summary judgment against CRI and petitioner. The motion asserted
that petitioner had no personal claims against Lindsey, a claim
which petitioner and CRI did not contest in their response to the
motion. The trial court denied Lindsey's motion.
A mediation session to address the claims of CRI and
petitioner against Lindsey and Halliburton was set for June 24,
1992. In their mediation submission, CRI and petitioner focused
almost exclusively on the legal grounds for holding Lindsey
liable for the damages to the well formation. Their submission
did not mention the events surrounding the efforts to control the
blowout or otherwise make any reference to Halliburton, except to
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