Appeal Panel Decisions XI - Deepwater Horizon PDF
Preview Appeal Panel Decisions XI - Deepwater Horizon
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, an attorney in , appeals the denial of his BEL claim for failure to satisfy any of the causation requirements of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant originally submitted a Failed Business Claim but was notified by the Claims Center on May 7,2013, his claim was reclassified as a BEL claim.On May 31,2013,claimant received an incompleteness notice requiring submission of additional documents.Claimant was notified on July 2,2013, his claim was denied and he requested reconsideration which was denied on July 16,2013.On that same date claimant submitted additional documents to show he satisfied the decline-only revenue pattern which could not have been timely considered beforehand by the Claims Administrator. BP in its response to this appeal declares that this new data cannot be raised and considered in resolution of this appeal.Given the unusual, convoluted circumstances in the processing of this claim, this panelist concludes procedural fairness warrants remand of this claim to the Claims Administrator to consider all relevant documentation submitted by claimant so that any decision rendered comports adequately with all notions of procedural due process. APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Business Economic Loss Law Firm II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, a cotton farmer in northern appeals the denial of its BEL claim for failure to satisfy any of the causation requirements of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant contends the Claims Administrator misapplied the terms of the Settlement Agreement and excluded certain components of revenue,viz.,interest income, in calculating claimant's total revenue to measure whether the V-shaped Revenue Pattern causation requirements were satisfied. A review of the record discloses that such misapplication of the Settlement Agreement occurred here similar to that noted in Appeal Panel Decision 2013-308. In light of this error this claim should be reevaluated. APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Vessel Physical Damage Law Firm II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant,a vessel owner in south appeals the denial of its Vessel Physical Damage Claim based on the exclusion contained in Exhibit 14,Section 1.A ii,of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant argues such exclusion is inapplicable because it entered into a contract on January 5,2011,with ,a subcontractor in privity with BP to do oil spill remedial work as a VoO participant.It is apparent from other recent panel decisions that this contracual relationship is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and to render claimant a recognizable VoO participant outside the embrace of the exclusionary provisions of the Settlement Agreement.Most importantly,this contract relied on by claimant was executed on January 5,2011,well after the VoO program officially ended on November 26,2010. There is no error.The decision of the Claims Administrator is affirmed and the appeal of claimant is denied. APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP’s Final Proposal or the Claimant’s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $0 BP’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 0 Prior Payment Offset $0 Compensation Amount $135,281 Claimant’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 0 Prior Payment Offset $0 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): This claim is an eligible Seafood Compensation Program award. It required careful review due to several missed deadlines. BP demands denial of the claim due to the failure of Claimant to timely respond for documentation from the Administrator. However, after review of the Administrator's excusable neglect policy, this panel member finds the claim was properly handled and it is hereby affirmed. APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP’s Final Proposal or the Claimant’s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $19,645.43 BP’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 0 Prior Payment Offset $103,692.34 Compensation Amount $36,951.79 Claimant’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 0 Prior Payment Offset $103,692.34 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant, a shrimp boat owner in was awarded the base sum of $2,123.83 for his seafood compensation claim.He asserts error alleging the Claims Administrator in selecting benchmark revenue for 2009 used the sum of $13,620.83,derived from trip tickets, instead of the sum of $25,619.93,which conforms to revenues reported on his 2009 tax return and landing data documents from a local docking facility.BP responds and says it was proper for the Claims Administrator to rely on trip tickets provided by While these documents are reliable they are not a complete,accurate record of claimant's shrimping activities for 2009 as they cover only the months of June,July,August and October 2009.The landing data document from the same company shows total revenues from shrimping activity in 2009 at $25,619.93, the same sum as reported on claimant's tax return for 2009.For this reason claimant should prevail and his final proposal is accepted. APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program Law Firm II. DECISION Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP’s Final Proposal or the Claimant’s Final Proposal as the final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision. Compensation Amount $1,261.13 BP’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 2.25 Prior Payment Offset $0 Compensation Amount $20,000 Claimant’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 2.25 Prior Payment Offset $0 III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Error in documentation review. Error in calculation. Error in RTP multiplier. Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the award to him as a category 1 crewmember under the Seafood Crew Compensation Plan.Claimant challenges the adequacy of the award resulting allegedly from the Claims Administrator's failure to consider the customary manner in which seafood crew members are compensated;failure to provide compensation for future losses;and failure to provide a quick-pay option previously available to eligible GCCF claimants.The first issue is governed by Exhibit 10 of the Settlement Agreement which establishes a precise protocol for measuring crew member compensation.A portion of gross sales claimant customarily received as a deckhand is not a part of the formula established by the Settlement Agreement.Future losses sought by claimant are addressed by the RTP multiplier that account for future losses in the Settlement Agreement.Lastly,the Settlement Agreement supersedes any remedy previously available to GCCF claimants and claimant's rights thereto are governed now by the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.There is no error. The award is affirmed and the appeal of claimant is denied. APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Real Property Sales Law Firm Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Parcel ID Assessment ID II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Claimant appeals the reconsidered denial of her Real Property Sales claim. She represents herself and filed no supporting memorandum, instead submitting a copy of a letter dated June of 2011 notifying her that she has the right to seek recourse if she disagrees with the amount of payment under a prior program. Unfortunately for her, subsequent to that letter she received and accepted payment from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and on July 4, 2011 signed a release and covenant not to sue with the GCCF. Under Section 2.2.6, her receipt of this payment and subsequent execution of the release excludes her from any further right to seek payment under the Settlement Agreement unless it is under the VoO program or for Vessel Physical Damage. Real Property Sales claims are not similarly excluded from the release, and thus the appeal must be denied. APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION Last/Name of Business First Middle Claimant Name Claimant ID Claim ID Claim Type Wetlands Real Property Law Firm Street Parish/ County Parcel Address City State Zip Code Property Tax Parcel ID Assessment ID II. DECISION Denial Upheld Denial Overturned III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your decision. Claim should have been excluded. Claim should have been denied. Claim should not have been excluded. Claim should not have been denied. No error. Comment (optional): Written reasons uploaded
Description:The list of books you might like
