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?
BP 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.
And Exxon.
Yes, for as long as I drive a vehicle powered by fossil fuels, I will do my best to not purchase them from BP. I think this is a stretch…
Karissa Kilgore liked this on Facebook.
@DennisJerz Wow, I suppose this goes to show good revision of a paper can save millions of dollars.
RT @DennisJerz: BP argues missing comma in insurance contract entitles company to US$750-million (Financial Times) http://t.co/DWXxSJthfv