Tampa, Florida


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 2016-2038: Scholarship Fund Gift Merits Education Methodology

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 filed this BEL Claim which was ultimately denied by the Claims Administrator (CA) because Claimant’s financials did not meet the requirements of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement. Claimant appeals.
The Claims Administrator applied Policy 495’s Education Methodology to this claim and determined that Claimant’s financials did not meet the requirement of Exhibit 4B. Claimant argues that the claim should be stayed pending a decision on Policy 495 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. However, the U.S. District Court denied such a stay and the Appeal Panel and the U.S. District Court have routinely denied such relief.
Claimant objects to the Claims Administrator’s application of the Education Methodology to this claim asserting that Claimant’s financials recorded tuition revenue in the
month it was earned. However, the record reflects that the Claims Administrator properly followed the mandates of Policy 495 and allocated monthly revenue on a straight line basis to those months covered by the tuition paid (Policy 495 at E3).
This panelist finds that the Claims Administrator properly analyzed and treated this issue.
Finally, claimant objects to the Claims Administrator’s treatment of half of the gift to the University in 2007. The Claims Administrator found that half of the gift related to the scholarship fund and the other half related to a faculty development fund. The scholarship fund gift related to tuition payments and was properly allocated by the Claims Administrator to the Education Methodology. The Claims Administrator determined that the half given for faculty development was a one-time investment in Claimant’s teaching staff and was not tuition revenue.
The Claims Administrator’s treatment of the gift is logical and appropriate. For the foregoing reasons, this panelist finds that the Claims Administrator correctly
analyzed the claim and appropriately denied it.

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.