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.


The three-member panel has duly convened and enters the following unanimous decision:

BP appeals the BEL award to claimant, a commercial contractor in Sarasota, Florida. BP asserts the Settlement Program(SP) failed to exclude revenue generated from out-of-zone facilities as required by the Settlement Agreement and Policy 467. BP argues that claimant operates throughout the State of Florida and has many projects which are outside the compensable zone that generate regular revenues to claimant’s business operations that should have been excluded from the award calculation. BP contends these out-of-zone operations are manifested by the presence of on-site construction trailers from which claimant manages and supervises its operations and are thus a “facility” constituting a segment of a multi-facility business, only a part of which should be considered eligible for compensation.

Claimant responds its sole office and principal place of business is in Sarasota, Florida (in zone D) and that all of its management and supervisory business operations are conducted there. While claimant acknowledges it has projects located outside the compensable zone and uses trailers at these sites, they are not used as “a permanent office” or as an instrument to “perform or manage its operations.” Claimant represents the trailers are used as temporary storage space for materials, permit documentation and OSHA required materials.

A review of the record confirms and supports claimant’s representations. BP has presented no real, substantive evidence other than conclusory assertions to dispel claimant’s contentions. The determination made by the SP that a portion of claimant’s revenues should not be excluded in this instance is consistent with a host of prior panel decisions that construction trailers (such as claimant’s that are used for storage purposes only and from which no real management or supervisory operations emanate) are not separate facilities whose revenues generated at sites therefrom are subject to exclusion.

There is no error. Remand is not warranted. The decision of the Claims Administrator is affirmed and the appeal of BP is denied.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest