09222017Headline:

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 2015-198: No first step “matching”

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.


In initially reviewing this appeal, in the early days of Policy 495, this panelist was persuaded by the arguments of BP that requesting a Summary of Review was in order. (Submissions by Claimant’s counsel were of no help, consisting simply of self-serving, generalized statements with no citation to the record.)

In the ensuing four months, the body of Appeal Panel decisions analyzing implementation of the Policy, aided by informative and objective briefings by the Settlement Program at the quarterly meetings in New Orleans, and the collaborative “closed” en banc sessions of the 13 panelists immediately following those meetings and over the course of panel-wide email exchanges, have developed all of the information this panelist needs for a proper analysis of the issues in this appeal.

Thus, the Summary of Review, which has not yet been forthcoming is no longer needed, resulting in the request for it hereby being cancelled. The panelist is now able to determine that the Settlement Program did not err in subjecting the claim to the Annual Variable Margin methodology rather than the Professional Services methodology, as contended for by BP, and that BP’s contention that the Settlement Program was mandated by Policy 495 to undertake a “correcting” of mismatches of revenue and expenses as a “first step” in the process, in advance of the seven-criteria screening process, is unfounded in the Policy.

BP’s Final Proposal of $18,500, offered as “a rough approximation (due to an incomplete record) based on an attempt to measure changes in variable profit,” in contrast to the Compensation Amount awarded by the Settlement Program, which is Claimant’s Final Proposal, compels the panelist to select the Claimant’s Final Proposal under the Baseball Process. Appeal denied.

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.