10232017Headline:

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 2015-1151: On alternative causation, “BP’s appeal is without merit”

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.


The sole issue on appeal by BP in this matter is whether this BEL claim is implausible and/or suspicious. Claimant’s revenue is derived from oil & gas leases and royalties. This claim is not excluded by the Settlement Agreement and there is no question that Claimant’s financials meet the requirements set forth in Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. BP’s appeal here can best be summarized by a quote from BP’s Memorandum in Support of the Initial Proposal:

“It is inconceivable that an oil spill in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico resulted in a loss of royalties associated with the extraction of oil and gas from Claimant’s property.”

Thus, the issue BP raises is the recurring “Alternative Causation” issue. Policy 308 v2, the District Court and the Court of Appeal have addressed this issue. The two appeal panel decisions cited by BP are clearly distinguishable. Here, Claimant’s revenues are not from illegal sources and Claimant did not make false statements concerning its claim. Claimant clearly meets the requirements of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement.

BP’s appeal is without merit.

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.