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 filed this Business Economic Loss claim under the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator denied the claim on the grounds that Claimant’s business does not meet the definition of a “Facility” under the Settlement Agreement. Claimant sought reconsideration and the Claims Administrator again denied the claim. Claimant appeals.

The Settlement Agreement defines “Facility” as a “separate and distinct physical location of a Multi-Facility Business at which it performs or manages its operations.” Ex. 5, at 2. To implement the Settlement Agreement, the Claims Administrator promulgated Policy 467. It defines a “Facility” as: (a) A separate and distinct physical structure or premises; (b) Owned, leased, or operated by the Business Entity; (c) At which the Business Entity performs and/or manages its operations. Policy 467, at 5.

Claimant is a professional corporation employing sixteen radiologists. These physicians provide radiology services at five different hospitals. Claimant contends that the reading rooms within each of the five hospitals constitute separate facilities and meet the definition of “Facility” in the Settlement Agreement. Claimant submitted a signed statement from its CPA, explaining the nature of its operations. Claimant states that it has a contract with XXXXX to provide radiology services for all five of XXXXX’s imaging locations. XXXXX provides a reading room to Claimant. However, Claimant does not pay rent or lease expenses on the reading room. See Claimant’s Opening Memorandum at 3, citing Doc. ID XXXXX. There is no evidence that Claimant pays for janitorial services, electricity, or other items a tenant normally has. In fact, it is clear from the record, despite Claimant’s excellent briefing, that the only service provided is the contracted radiology service. Provision of the service alone does not permit Claimant to meet the definition of “Facility” under the Settlement Agreement. Claimant suggests Policy 467 is not binding on the Appeals Panel and it should be disregarded. It is true that Policy 467 is not binding; however, it is salient and sound.

The Claims Administrator’s denial is affirmed.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest