BP asks Supreme Court to toss out part of settlement deal
NEW ORLEANS — BP PLC has asked the Supreme Court to throw out part of its settlement of claims for damage from its enormous oil spill in 2010 — a section saying businesses don't have to prove that the spill directly harmed them to be eligible for payment, only that they lost money afterward and recovered in 2011.
Claims administrator Patrick Juneau has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to businesses whose losses “were not fairly traceable to the spill” in the Gulf of Mexico, including $76 million to businesses whose entire losses had nothing to do with it, the company's lawyers wrote in a request filed late on Friday.
Those included $3.5 million to an Alabama excavation company that had sold nearly all of its assets in 2009 and $172,000 to a lawyer whose license was revoked in 2009, they wrote.
The high court hears arguments in 75 to 80 of the 10,000 appeals it gets each year.
BP argued in its formal request for a hearing that it should be one of those few heard by the nation's highest court because the settlement goes against rulings in other federal districts and by the Supreme Court.
When it canceled a class action suit against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that members of a class had to have suffered the same injury, they wrote. “Claimants whose purported injuries did not result from the spill cannot have suffered the ‘same injury' as those who actually did suffer spill-related loss,” the appeal said.
Lead class attorneys Steve Herman and Jim Roy said, “BP co-wrote and agreed to every word in the Settlement Agreement,” including Juneau's policy. “It is not surprising that the Courts have all told BP to honor its word,” they said in an emailed statement.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the settlement in deeply split rulings with votes of 2-1 and 8-5.
BP's attorneys said one federal appeals court has, like the 5th Circuit, ruled that groups bringing a class-action suit may include members who have not been injured by the defendant, but four have rejected such classes.
“The issues raised here are important to all companies, which depend on a fair and consistent application of the law when they choose to do business in the United States,” company spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an emailed statement. Upholding terms of the settlement reached in 2012 could lead companies to go to court rather than settle claims, “resulting in years of court proceedings and delayed justice for real victims,” he said.
Millions of gallons of oil gushed from BP's Macondo well in the months after it blew wild on April 20, 2010, killing 11 men. The well was capped in July of that year.
BP says it has spent about $27 billion on response, cleanup, early restoration and claims payments, about $14 billion on response and cleanup, and the rest in claims and other payments such as money to test seafood and grants for tourism campaigns in Gulf Coast states.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- House OKs deal to avert Oct. 1 shutdown, training of Syrian rebels
- FBI, federal marshals join manhunt for survivalist accused of ambushing troopers
- ‘God’ made optional in Air Force oath
- Flows from Hawaiian volcano being monitored
- Artificial sweeteners possible contributors to diabetes, obesity
- VA report sugarcoats actions, doctor says
- Chinese hack defense contractors
- Damage assessed from wildfire in Weed, Calif.
- Dog gone for 4 months found 3,000 miles from home
- 2 orbiters about to arrive at Mars to hunt for clues to climate change
- Again, Arizona looks to plentiful rain