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

BP appeals the BEL award to claimant,a roofing consultant located in St.Petersburg, Florida. BP asserts the Settlement Program(SP) failed to determine if claimant had income attributable to out-of-zone facilities.BP argues that claimant had a number of jobs it was engaged in across the country and outside the Gulf Coast Area.
Claimant argues its work is mainly performing roofing inspections and it has no reason to maintain out-of-zone facilities such as construction job-site trailers. A review of the record discloses that claimant is a roofing consultant whose work primarily involves commercial roofing inspections.Claimant on its BEL claim form declared it operates only from one facility in St.Petersburg, Florida.While claimant may engage in out-of-zone projects, including some roof construction projects,there is no
objective evidence in claimant’s financial records or elsewhere to suggest claimant incurs expenses to buy, lease or maintain out-of-zone facilities to operate. The very nature of claimant’s work reveals it is of short duration requiring minimal on-sit e supervision or oversight.The documents relied on by BP do not evidence anything to the contrary other than claimant may have been involved in some out-of-zone projects.One of the cited projects was located in Orlando, Florida, only a short drive from
claimant’s office.
The decisions are uniform in holding that a claimant may properly receive revenues for purposes of the Settlement Agreement from out-of-zone operations if such operations are managed and supervised from an in-zone facility.
In sum,there is no showing that claimant was required to station employees in any out-of-zone location and to maintain separate facilities there. BP’s argument is
premised on conjecture and surmise which is not sufficient. Accordingly,the decision of the Claims Administrator is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest