- 28 -
required to support a mental anguish claim. The testimony of the
eyewitnesses to Halliburton’s actions may have been sufficient.
Moreover, the assessment of Mr. Burditt’s then-attorney--
namely, that the claim against Halliburton was primarily for
economic damages--must be considered in light of the fact that at
the time of the trial of this case, the attorney was being sued
by Mr. Burditt with respect to his handling of the blowout
litigation. Also, notwithstanding this assessment, the attorney
testified that he intended to use the actions of Halliburton's
employees to incite the jury.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the
litigation, we simply do not accept Halliburton's attorneys'
contention at the trial of this case that they were concerned
only with Halliburton's exposure for damages to the well
formation. They may simply have been reluctant to concede a
client’s exposure to punitive damages. We find it inconceivable
that someone at Halliburton reviewing this lawsuit did not
believe the company had exposure for mental anguish and/or
punitive damages should the case get to a jury. We conclude that
Halliburton paid to settle not only economic claims for damage to
the well but also Mr. Burditt's mental anguish claim, and to
avoid the risk of punitive damages.
Because we are convinced that the Halliburton settlement was
both for economic damages as well as for mental anguish and/or
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