- 26 -
only the economic claims of CRI and Mr. Burditt in its mediation
submission, and that Halliburton's attorneys testified that they
were only concerned with the claims for economic damages to the
well. Contemporaneous correspondence between the Halliburton
attorneys substantiates that a primary influence on their
decision to settle for $200,000 was the estimated cost of
defending against CRI’s economic claims, specifically the cost of
obtaining expert testimony to counter the CRI expert witness who
valued the well formation damages at more than $3 million.
Finally, respondent points out that Mr. Burditt's own counsel in
the blowout litigation testified that he believed the focus of
the case was on CRI's claims for economic damages.
It is clear from the record that Halliburton was concerned
about the economic claims of CRI and Mr. Burditt. However, we
are not convinced that petitioner abandoned the mental anguish
claim that was repeatedly restated in the amended petitions, nor
do we believe, given the substantial evidence of deliberate
actions by Halliburton’s employees that were life-endangering,
that Halliburton was not also concerned about exposure to mental
anguish claims should the case go to a jury. We believe that
Halliburton was concerned both with economic damages to the well
formation and with exposure to mental anguish claims and punitive
damages arising from the actions of its employees. CRI and
petitioner had the depositions of at least five eyewitnesses who
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011