BP argues missing comma in insurance contract entitles company to US$750-million

I make it a point to drive past my local BP and patronize a different franchise. Not just because of the comma, of course. How about you?

IMG_3287.JPGBP argues the drilling contract skipped a needed comma, and that the omission either granted access to coverage or created ambiguity that triggered an exception. Under Texas law, an ambiguous insurance contract would be interpreted in its favor, BP contends.

The clause in the drilling agreement reads that BP, its subsidiaries and workers would be “named as additional insureds” in Transocean’s polices “except Workers’ Compensation for liabilities assumed by [Transocean] under the terms of this contract.”

BP contends that because there isn’t a comma after the words “workers’ compensation,” this leaves open coverage liability for oil discharged from the well. Insurers could have inserted “standard language” to restrict coverage and “cannot rewrite the policies to add those restrictions now,” BP said. —Financial Post.

 

 

5 thoughts on “BP argues missing comma in insurance contract entitles company to US$750-million

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *