Breaux v. Halliburton Energy, et al, No. 2:2004cv01636 - Document 588 (E.D. La. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER denying Halliburton Energy Services' 578 Motion for Reconsideration ; Further Ordered that the 580 Motion to Alter or Amend Order and Reasons, of Era Aviation, Inc. and Rowan Companies, Inc., is granted as set forth in document. Ordered that the 577 Order and Reasons of December 2, 2009 is amended as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon. (ijg, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Breaux v. Halliburton Energy, et al Doc. 588 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHANNON BREAUX ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 04-1636 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. ET AL. SECTION: "S" (4) ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Halliburton Energy Services’ motion to alter or amend this court’s Order and Reasons of December 2, 2009, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), is DENIED. (Document #578.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Motion to Alter or Amend Order and Reasons” of Era Aviation, Inc. and Rowan Companies, Inc. is GRANTED. (Document #580.) The excess policy procured by Halliburton pays for losses of Era and Rowan exceeding $100,000,000. Because the losses are less than $100,000,000, Halliburton has effectively failed to provide Era and Rowan with excess insurance coverage. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order and Reasons of December 2, 2009, is AMENDED as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.’s “Motion for Dockets.Justia.com Summary Judgment” on the issue of coverage under the Excess Policy is DENIED. (Document #567.) Halliburton did not name Era and Rowan as additional insureds on an Excess Policy that provides coverage for losses over $1,000,000 but less that $100,000,000, as required by the Rowan/Halliburton Agreement.1 26th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of February, 2010. ____________________________________ MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Era and Rowan recognize that the issue whether Era and Rowan Halliburton breached its contractual obligation is not properly before this court. They state that they may file a motion for summary judgment addressing the issue. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
