Beyond the out-of-court settlement announced Monday between BP and Anadarko in the consolidated federal Macondo damages case, the last few days saw a flurry of developments within the proceedings.
On Monday, a hearing was scheduled for November 2 for a ruling by the magistrate judge in the case on rig owner Transocean's motion to dismiss some plaintiffs' claims because they have not participated in discovery.
On Friday, the presiding judge in the case denied requests for summary judgment against Transocean and other defendants for negligent operation of the Deepwater Horizon rig, while on Thursday the judge also dismissed a small group of claims against the owners of the ships that initially fought the fire on the rig April 20, 2010.
In the summary judgment ruling Friday, Judge Carl Barbier rejected three plaintiffs motions, including one against Transocean for its "negligent operation of Deepwater Horizon, including its testing of the well, its failure to detect signals preceding the blowout, and its failure to properly divert overboard the hydrocarbons released by the blowout."
The second motion sought summary judgment against Halliburton for "both its defective cement design and its negligent testing and application of cement."
The third motion was against Cameron International for a "defect in the design of [the blowout preventers] blind shear rams."
Barbier ruled in all three cases that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for a summary judgment, and thus will allow the trial to continue.
Meanwhile, Barbier's ruling Thursday dismissed what was known as the B4 complaint bundle, comprising 13 plaintiffs purporting to represent three classes: Louisiana landowners, commercial fishermen/oystermen/etc., and employees in the oil and natural gas industry.
They made claims for property damage and/or economic losses resulting from the discharge of oil against six vessels and their owners and/or operators that responded to the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon and attempted to extinguish the fire with their water cannons.
The B4 complaint asserted that the water poured onto the rig by the boats caused the rig to capsize, thus bending and breaking the well riser and thus causing the worst oil spill in American history.
The defendants' primary argument was that they owed no legal duty to the B4 claimants, because it was not legally foreseeable that the act of spraying water onto and around a burning rig could cause the loss of control of the Macondo well and, in turn, the damages claimants allege.
Barbier ruled that the B4 claimants did not state a cause of action against the defendants under the Oil Pollution Act, which is primary in this case.
He also found that the ultimate harm of the oil spill was "too attenuated to be foreseeable as a matter of law." Adding that to conclude otherwise goes "beyond the pale of general harm which reasonably might have been anticipated by negligent [responders]."
The B4 complaint was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again by the claimants.
One personal injury claim was excepted, and the judge noted that his order does not prejudice a B4 claimant from filing a complaint in another pleading bundle.
