The 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was a devastating event for the Gulf Coast economy, culture, and environment. While BP’s handling of the incident remains a source of negligence claims, new claims have also arisen that BP is distributing damages to claimants unfairly as well. A May 2017 decision by the U.S Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit found that BP was calculating compensation in violation of the Court Supervised Settlement Program for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement (“the Settlement”), the agreement reached between those affected by the spill and BP.

At issue is this suit was how compensation for BP Spill victims—in legal terms “claimants”—would have their damages calculated under the Settlement. The Settlement allows for five Industry Specific Methodologies (ISMs) for determining the amount that each plaintiff received. Basically, because so many types of claims affecting disparate economies (e.g. construction, fishing, educations, agriculture, tourism, etc.) separate compensation formulas were required.  Claimants were supposed to be able to choose the methodology for compensation that best matched their industry and were supposed to be able to choose the applicable period of harm for which they would be compensated. The compensation period had to be composed of consecutive months between May and December 2010.

Policy 495 of the Settlement consists of five methodologies that the claims administrator can use to calculate claimant compensation.  Essentially, the policy divides claimants into two categories:  Those engaged in construction, education, agriculture and professional services are subject to certain ISMs, and those engaged in everything else are subject to an AVMM.

Again, under the Settlement, claimants were supposed to be able to choose a period for which they would be compensated; the period had to be composed of consecutive months between May and December 2010. Claimants whose industries were best suited to the Annual Variable Margin Methodology (AVMM) received a close to “dollar for dollar” accounting of their loss during the compensation period chosen. Unfortunately, those who found themselves under other ISM’s found that the Settlement’s claim administrator was averaging their losses over both the chosen and unchosen months of the claims period. This seemed to fly in the face of the clear intent to the Settlement.

The Fifth Circuit found that ISM’s are intended to provide claimants with the right to choose a period of compensation of consecutive months from May until December 2010, but the application of the methodologies where the claimants’ months were averaged really results in that choice being meaningless. The court held that the AVMM method, with its more exact accounting, actually complied with the spirit of the Settlement’s Policy 495. The panel also concluded that all claimants involved in construction, education, agriculture and professional services should be subject to the AVMM.

Have you been injured as a result of an improperly calculated or administered claim? Important deadlines, statutes of limitations, and filing requirements make consulting with an experienced plaintiffs’ attorney with BP oil spill experience a vital step to protecting yourself, your livelihood, and your rights if you have suffered as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill or are a claimant under the Settlement.

Contact Mississippi BP Oil Spill Attorney Jonathan Barrett at Barrett Law immediately to protect your rights

Call Mississippi BP Oil spill Attorney Barrett to set up a free initial consultation. Your BP oil spill claims are not simple, and you should not trust them to an attorney lacking the plaintiffs’ law and BP oil spill experience attorney Barrett possess. Call us now at (800)-707-9577 to protect your livelihood and life.