On February 13, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court, in response to certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, held that BP was only entitled to limited coverage for Macondo related claims as an Additional Insured under Transoceanâ€™s insurance policies. Specifically, the court held the Transocean insurance contracts included the language required to necessitate â€œconsulting the drilling contractâ€ to determine BPâ€™s status as an additional insured. The court then found that, under the drilling contract, BPâ€™s status as an additional insured was inextricably intertwined with the limitations on the extent of coverage to be provided by the Transocean policies. Further, the court found that the only reasonable interpretation of the drilling contractâ€™s additional insured provision is that BPâ€™s status as an additional insured is limited to liabilities assumed by Transocean in the drilling contract. As such, the court held BP is not entitled to coverage under Transoceanâ€™s policies for subsurface pollution because BP had assumed liability for subsurface pollution under the contract. The court took pains to identify distinctions in the verbiage of the Transocean policy versus the policy at issue in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Atofina Petrochems., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660, 665 (Tex. 2008), in which the court held coverage for additional insureds must be determined by the coverage language in the policy, without regard to the underlying contract.
After issuing a ruling regarding the scope of additional insured coverage available to BP, the court then expressly declined to respond to the second question involving contra proferentum. As a result, contra proferentum remains the law in Texas, without any â€œsophisticated insuredâ€ exception.