The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

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 is a sugar cane/soybean farm located in White Castle, Louisiana, Zone C. The Claims Administrator’s Vendor Accountants used Policy 495 and the Agriculture Methodology to review and allocate revenues and expenses which were not sufficiently matched. The result, as is often the case, is that the Claimant failed all causation tests of Exhibit 4 B.

A review of the record documents shows the Claimant requested the Administrator use a 40 month allocation of revenues/expenses due to its contention that one planting of sugar cane results in three crop cycles of three harvests. The Administrator used the USDA crop rotation data and adjusted the crop plantings by one month. BP points out the Claimant earned more revenues in 2010 than in 2009. The Vendor Accountants used their professional judgment and utilized the Agriculture Methodology to allocate Claimants’ revenues/expenses to the crop seasons. Under this record, the Claimant cannot meet causation no matter how the revenues and expenses are allocated. The denial is affirmed.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest