07212017Headline:

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 2016-1333:Claimant’s Address Does Not Meet Proximity Requirements for Exception to Be Considered in a More Favorable Zone

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 Settlement Program determined that Claimant does not satisfy the requirements of Exhibit 4B to the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Program found Claimant to be located in Zone B and that it did not satisfy at least one of the tests in Exhibit 4B. Claimant appeals, arguing that it is
located in Zone A and thus entitled to a presumption of causation under Exhibit 4B.
Claimant’s address is ***Gulf Shores, Alabama 36542. According to the Settlement Program’s mapping tool, Claimant is located in Zone B. Exhibit 1C provides a limited set of circumstances under which a claimant that is physically located within the boundaries of one zone can be processed using a more favorable zone classification,
providing, “if a road borders on 2 different types of zones, the parcels on this road shall be deemed to be within the more preferential zone.” Additionally, if a surface road is on the border of two zones, and a claimant’s parcel is “directly accessible to [the] surface road via a driveway, parking lot, or on-street parking,” the parcel can be processed using the more favorable zone.
Claimant is on the border of Zones A and B. In Claimant’s Opening Memorandum, it contends that its parcel is located “right on XXX.” However, upon an examination of the evidence in the record, it is apparent Claimant’s parcel is not located on XXX. There is another parcel with a structure between Claimant and XXX. Claimant contends: “when you turn off YYY, you are on XXX.” Claimant goes on to assert that this portion of is, in effect, Claimant’s driveway. The photographs show that XXX
provides access to Claimant’s parcel, but it does not “dead end” at Claimant’s parcel. Rather, it runs along the south edge of Claimant’s parcel and connects with YYY,
 which runs from north to south on Claimant’s east edge.
Claimant’s parcel is also accessible from XXX Street; hence its address. Accordingly, Claimant is not located on XXX. Claimant’s parcel is not “directly accessible to
via a driveway, parking lot, or on-street parking.”Consequently, Claimant’s parcel does not qualify for inclusion in Zone A by virtue of its proximity to an apprpriate street. Claimant was properly classified as a Zone B property. It does not satisfy the revenue requirements for any of the tests set forth in Exhibit 4B for a Zone B
property. Accordingly,Claimant’s appeal is 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.