03242017Headline:

Tampa, Florida

HomeFloridaTampa

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 2015-1147: “BP’s claim of error is wholly misplaced”

0 comments

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.


Claimant filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Program awarded Claimant $25,465.25. BP appeals.

On appeal, BP requests a remand or a Final Proposal of $0.00. BP bases their position on an analysis of a revenue pattern in the September-December 2010 time period and an additional time period in Summer, 2011.

There is a fundamental problem with BP’s analysis. It is speculation. What BP refers to as an unusual “spike” is easily explained by the facts. The increase in October 2010 revenues is explained by the security deposit and rent for October given a lease inception date of October 1, 2010. Likewise the “unusual” decline in November and December reflects the new rent but, obviously, no further security deposits. Beyond this, the Settlement Program identified the claim as insufficiently matched and applied Policy 495. See Calculation Notes, Note 16. Using the AVM, the Settlement Program reached the result of which BP complains. Having done so, the Settlement Program’s award is, as a matter of law, deemed properly matched.

Given this, BP’s claim of error is wholly misplaced.

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.