The saga of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill continues to rage on, and the debate continues to grow over the interpretation of the settlement agreement designed to compensate business and individuals that suffered losses as a result of the oil spill.  The newest debate centers on whether the settlement agreement should remain in force.

In August 2013, attorneys for businesses that suffered damages as a result of the oil spill and the BP settlement claims administrator made a joint request to United States District Court Judge Carl Barbier to expand covered losses to additional businesses and claims.  These businesses include those that sustained losses as a result of the temporary, six-month suspension by the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, of deep water drilling activities.

On September 10, 2013, BP filed documents with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, located in New Orleans, objecting to the request for expansion, contending that the BP economic damages settlement, also referred to as the BP Spill Accord, was not intended to extend to moratorium-related losses.  The moratorium damages claims include those damages asserted by businesses in the offshore oil and gas industry, banks and financial institutions, and investment companies.

BP has again objected to paying claims—this time in a much more dramatic manner.  It has filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  BP is arguing that, unless it is successful in disputing certain payments to businesses that BP contends suffered losses not directly attributable to the oil spill, the Fifth Circuit should rescind Judge Barbier’s approval of the settlement agreement.  Judge Barbier granted final approval of the settlement agreement on December 21, 2012.

According to BP’s attorneys, the interpretations of the claims administrator (Patrick Juneau) regarding the settlement terms has resulted in the approval of millions of dollars of payments to businesses for unsubstantiated losses.  BP is essentially contending that what it agreed to in the settlement agreement is not being adhered to or properly applied by Judge Barbier or Patrick Juneau.  BP is further contending that Juneau’s interpretation creates a conflict amongst members of the class, because some members are seeking recovery for actual damages and some members are seeking recovery for non-existent injuries.

Judge W. Eugene Davis, during oral arguments, questioned the delay in BP objecting to the payments.  BP’s attorney’s response was that BP did object.

In addition to BP’s attorneys, attorneys representing thousands of victims are likewise contending that approval of the settlement agreement should be rescinded.  According to Brent Coon, the settlement class is not an appropriate class in that it is composed of distinct groups that are dissimilar except that they lived, worked, or owned property somewhere in the region affected by the oil spill when it occurred.

Earlier this fall, BP appealed Judge Barbier’s interpretation of the settlement agreement, and a panel of appellate court judges ordered review of the interpretation and issued an order to Judge Barbier to suspend certain payments until the concerns about the settlement agreement could be worked out.   Payments to be suspended included those related to business economic losses.

Although the claims period for filing a claim for damages resulting from the BP spill have passed for many groups of businesses and individuals, if you sustained damages as a result of the spill and have any questions about your rights, Barrett Law, PLLC can be reached at (800) 707-9577 to discuss your options.