04272017Headline:

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 2016-1197: Allocation of Revenue Under Agriculture Methodology Negates Farmer’s 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 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 is a sugar cane/soybean farm located in White Castle, Louisiana, Zone C. The Claims Administrator’s Vendor Accountants used Policy 495 and the Agriculture Methodology to review and allocate revenues and expenses which were not sufficiently matched. The result, as is often the case, is that the Claimant failed all causation tests of Exhibit 4 B.

A review of the record documents shows the Claimant requested the Administrator use a 40 month allocation of revenues/expenses due to its contention that one planting of sugar cane results in three crop cycles of three harvests. The Administrator used the USDA crop rotation data and adjusted the crop plantings by one month. BP points out the Claimant earned more revenues in 2010 than in 2009. The Vendor Accountants used their professional judgment and utilized the Agriculture Methodology to allocate Claimants’ revenues/expenses to the crop seasons. Under this record, the Claimant cannot meet causation no matter how the revenues and expenses are allocated. The denial 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.