09202017Headline:

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 2017-1005: Exh. 4 Of SA Substitutes “Proof of Loss” for “Proof of Causation;” Passing V-Shaped Test Presumes Causation

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

This Claimant is a bridge and road construction company that is the parent company for three subsidiaries: a sand and gravel unit, a pre-cast concrete unit and a hauling company. The Claimant is located in Greenwood, Mississippi, 250 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The Administrator assigned it a NAICS Code in the construction
industry. The Policy 495 criteria were triggered and the Construction Methodology was utilized to restate the P/Ls. Following an award by the Administrator, BP appeals asserting an attestation failure of the claim form which it contends renders the claim “implausible and suspicious.”
That issue has been found by numerous Appeal Panel decisions to be in direct conflict with the Settlement Agreement. Exhibit 4 of the Settlement Agreement substitutes proof of loss for proof of causation. A Claimant does not have to produce evidence that its loss of revenue arose as a result of the spill. Once a Claimant has passed the V-Shaped tests it is presumed to have shown causation. BP also argues the Vendor Accountants should have used the AVM Methodology and not the Construction Methodology.
The Claimant maintains its records using a program called HardHat. It uses the accrual basis with daily entries. A review of the financials shows the Vendor Accountants made numerous inquiries and adjustments to the Claimants’ financials and even conducted a Re-Review of the Claim. This panel , after consultation, unanimously affirms the award.

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.