07252017Headline:

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 2017-809: Auto Auction Claimant’s Financials Sufficiently Matched–BP’s Argument is “Speculative”

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 operates an auto auction in Tampa, Florida and submitted a BEL claim. The Claims Administrator found Claimant’s financials to be sufficiently matched (no matching criteria were triggered) and the claim proceeded under the BEL Methodology, resulting in a pre-RTP award of $1,016,665.88. BP appeals the award, claiming the Program erred by failing to investigate two “spikes” in Claimant’s revenue in August and October, 2011. BP contends that Claimant only passed causation because of these “spikes” and, for that reason, the Program should have selected these months for special scrutiny before making an award that exceeds $1 million.
The record demonstrates that Claimant reported $1,030,243 in revenue in August 2011 and $1,062,334 in October 2011, compared with September ($894,755) and November ($845,948). This represents a differential of 14% (Aug.–Sept.) and 20% (Oct.Nov.) respectively. BP argues that these “spikes” “may reflect revenues earned in prior months” and, if so, they should be reallocated.
The panel has examined Claimant’s revenue for 2011 and finds the above differentials consistent with other months. For example, Claimant’s revenue fluctuated by 14% in November – December as well as June–July, by 19% in January February and 20% in March–April. Claimant also reported monthly revenue in excess of $1 million in January 2011.
After a de novo review of the record, this panel unanimously concludes BP’s argument to be purely speculative and finds no error on the part of the Claims ministrator. There is no basis for remand nor is there record support for BP’s final proposal of $0. Accordingly, in this “baseball” appeal, the panel concludes that Claimant’s final proposal is the correct result. The 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.