Tampa, Florida


Email Tom Young Tom Young on LinkedIn Tom Young on Twitter Tom Young on Facebook Tom Young on Avvo
Tom Young
Tom Young
Attorney • (813) 251-9706

BP Business Economic Loss Claim Appeal 2015-1682: Two triggers hit, yet claim correctly deemed sufficiently matched

1 comment

The following is an Appeal Panel Decision issued pursuant to Section 6 of the BP Deepwater Horizon Economic & Property Damages Settlement Agreement and the Rules Governing the BP Appeals Process. Links may have been added to assist the reader. The original decision may be found here, as well as a glossary of BP Settlement terms.

BP challenges the award to this Dunedin, Florida chiropractic physician in his BEL claim. The Claims Administrator found Claimant entitled to $32,383.60. BP counters with a final proposal of $27,979.60. The issue on appeal is whether the Claims Administrator erred by not correctly applying Policy 495.

Two criteria were triggered under the Policy 495 analysis, yet the claim was analyzed pursuant to the standard BEL protocol, not the AVM. For this reason, this panelist sought a summary of review. The Claims Administrator responded that the two criteria were triggered because, on two occasions, the claimant’s payroll contained three pay periods and these fluctuations made it appear that Claimant’s financials were insufficiently matched. After investigation, the Program accountants determined that, in their professional judgment, these were anomalies and that otherwise, the claim was sufficiently matched such that the AVM methodology was not necessary.

Policy 495 affords the Program’s accounting vendors the discretion to use their professional judgment and determine the appropriate accounting methodology to apply in the event a claimant’s revenue and expenses are deemed to not be sufficiently matched. In this instance, the accountants determined that sufficient matching was achieved and that the appropriate resolution was to proceed with the general BEL methodology rather than apply one of the methodologies set up in Policy 495.

After a thorough review, and given the specific circumstances of this appeal, this panelist finds that the professional judgment of the Program accountants was justified and that the award is appropriate. Accordingly, the appeal is denied.

[Editor’s Note: See Why Policy 495’s seven volatility screens are not conclusive of insufficient matching]

1 Comment

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  1. William Saron says:
    up arrow

    This is the first claim I have seen paid to a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.).

Leave a Comment

Have an opinion? Please leave a comment using the box below.

For information on acceptable commenting practices, please visit Lifehacker's guide to weblog comments. Comments containing spam or profanity will be filtered or deleted.