06252017Headline:

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 2015-860: Incompleteness Denial, Multi-Facility Claim

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 Appeals Process. Links may have been added to assist the reader. The original decision may be found here.


Claimant is a Multi-Facility Business. This claim was filed as a multifacility claim, with an election to file a separate claim for its individual “car lot” facility.

Claimant did not maintain contemporaneous profit and loss statements for each facility, however, it provided restated financials for the “car lot” facility that was the subject of this claim. Claimant admits that while represented by former counsel, it provided some, but not all, of the documentation required as “Additional Multi-Facility Business Documentation” by Exhibit 5 of the Settlement Agreement.

The claim was denied on the basis that it did not pass causation at both the initial claim phase and the reconsideration phase. At both levels, the causation test was run using the company wide revenue numbers rather than the individual facility revenue, contrary to the election of Claimant to make a claim only for the “car lot” facility. Insufficient documentation was cited in both denial notices.

Claimant requests the Appeals Panel remand the claim with the opportunity for the claimant to complete its claim submission, or, in the alternative, enter the denial notice as an Incompleteness Denial Notice and allow the claimant leave to resubmit its claim.

This matter lends itself to the Incompleteness Process Procedure of the Claims Administrator, entered March 23, 2013. That procedural announcement relates to all claims. It provides that consistent with the Settlement Agreement, “the Claims Administrator has implemented an Incompleteness Process that provides claimants with two written Notices, an initial Incompleteness Notice and a Follow-Up Incompleteness Notice, informing the claimant about the documents required to complete the claim submission, before the Claims Administrator denies the claim for insufficient documentation. The memo summarizes the policy and includes flowcharts depicting the Incompleteness Process the Claims Administrator has implemented.”

The Procedure details the Incompleteness Process. The Claims Administrator is to provide claimants with several different opportunities to submit all documents required by the Settlement Agreement. The procedure’s process was not followed in this instance, to Claimant’s detriment. Claimant should have been given the opportunity to remedy the incompleteness, together with an explanation of the documentation needed. Accordingly, Claimant’s request for a remand is granted, and this matter is remanded to the Claims Administrator with instructions to issue an Incompleteness Notice in accordance with the procedure referenced above, reserving to Claimant the opportunity to remedy its submission in accordance therewith.

appeal 860

The preceding was the appeal panel decision in Appeal 2015-860. Learn more about the BP Deepwater Horizon Settlement Business Economic Loss (BEL) Claim Appeal Process.

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.