04282017Headline:

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 2015-1217: Pro se claimant “makes no effort”

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 Claims Administrator denied this Failed BEL claim on the grounds that the Claimant was unable to establish causation under Exhibit 6 of the Settlement Agreement.

Claimant presents a pro se appeal that asserts in relevant part:

“In regards to the oil spill, I lost my business and my house, which forced me to relocate my family from Florida to Dearborn, Michigan.”

No other argument or evidence is presented by the Claimant in support of its appeal.

Exhibit 6 sets forth the requirements for establishing causation for a Failed BEL claimant. Exhibit 6(II) provides five categories of claimants for which causation is presumed. These presumptive categories are limited to varying categories of seafood sale and processing, and charter fishing businesses. As the operator of a charter limousine service, Claimant does not meet the qualifications for these categories.

Therefore, Claimant was required to demonstrate a 10% decline in revenues during the months for which it operated between May 2010 and the last full month of its operations, as compared to the comparable months from May 2009 through April 2010. The Claims Administrator determined that the Claimant’s P&Ls failed to demonstrate the requisite decrease during the relevant time frame.

BP argues that the Claimant not only failed to show a 10% decline but that its P&Ls actually show a 3.94% increase. As stated, Claimant makes no effort to demonstrate any flaw in the Claims Administrator’s analysis and close review of the record likewise fails to demonstrate any error.

The Administrator was eminently correct in denying this claim and that decision is affirmed.

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.