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 Claim Discretionary Review of Appeal 2015-1361: Crop duster correctly treated as AVM, not Agriculture methodology


The following is a Discretionary Review Order issued by Judge Barbier pursuant to the Rules Governing Discretionary Court Review of Appeal Determinations. Judge Barbier’s rulings are binding on the Claims Administrator and the Appeal Panelists. 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.

Discretionary Review is GRANTED.

The claimant is a crop-duster business. In reviewing the claim, the Settlement Program Accountants found that the claimant’s records were insufficiently matched and then proceeded to apply Policy 495 using the Annual Variable Margin (“AVM”) methodology. The appellant contends that the Agriculture methodology should have been used. The Agriculture methodology is designed for claimants whose income and expenses correlate with identifiable crop seasons. Here, the Program Accountants correctly concluded that the AVM methodology better applied to this claimant and they properly exercised their discretion under Policy 495.

The Appeal Panel decision is REVERSED, and the Claims Administrator determination is REINSTATED.

[Editor’s Note: This Order reverses the holding of the appeal panelist in Appeal 2015-1361]

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.