Judge Approves BP Oil Spill Settlement

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier gave final approval to BP PLC's settlement with businesses and people who lost money because of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP has estimated it will pay $7.8 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims by businesses and individuals from the nation's worst offshore oil spill. The settlement has no cap; the company could end up paying more or less.

Judge Barbier approved the settlement in a 125-page ruling issued Friday evening. "None of the objections, whether filed on the objections docket or elsewhere, have shown the Settlement to be anything other than fair, reasonable, and adequate," he wrote. Barbier preliminarily approved the settlement in May.

The infamous April 2010 blowout of BP's Macondo well triggered an explosion that killed 11 rig workers. The well spilled more than 200 million gallons, or roughly 4.9 million barrels, of oil into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico over 87 days, until it was permanently sealed. A camera at the well-head broadcasted a live feed of the disaster to the world.

Barbier has not ruled on a medical settlement for cleanup workers and others who say exposure to oil or dispersants made them sick — just on economic and property damage claims. The agreement covers people and businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and some coastal counties in eastern Texas and western Florida, and in adjacent Gulf waters and bays.

As part of the settlement, BP will pay $2.3 billion to cover seafood-related claims by commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and deckhands. That fund is the settlement's only cap on damages. That figure is about five times the average industry gross revenue from 2007 to 2009 and, according to evidence provided, more than 19 times the revenue the industry lost in 2010.

While US District Judge Carl Barbier approved the deal in May, he held a “fairness hearing” in November, which weighed objections from 13,000 claimants who challenged the settlement. The hearing served to resolve some of the oil company’s liability for the Macondo well blowout. The blown out Macondo well gushed about After Judge Barbier gave preliminary approval in May, thousands of people opted out of the settlement to pursue their cases individually.

Still unresolved are environmental damage claims brought by the federal government and Gulf Coast states against BP and its partners on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and claims against Switzerland-based rig owner Transocean Ltd., and Houston-based cement contractor Halliburton.

There is a trial scheduled for 2013 which will identify causes of BP's well blowout and assign percentages of fault to the companies involved in the economic and environmental disaster.

Recent Alabama Federal Opinion

In Lamar v. Home Depot, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 6026272 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 3, 2012), Lamar instituted a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mobile County.  In Count I, he sought medical benefits under the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act; in other counts, he asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud and outrageous conduct.  The defendants removed the action asserting diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction.  Lamar filed a motion to remand.  Relying on his reading of Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055 (11th Cir. 2000), Chief District Judge Steele concluded that he was compelled to remand just Count I, the workers’ compensation claim, and to deny the request to transfer the other claims.

Hopefully, at some point in time, the Eleventh Circuit will address this decision and, especially, Steele’s conclusions that there was no “piecemeal” removal and that defendants can successfully remove a lawsuit containing a workers’ compensation claim with an appreciation that the workers’ compensation claim will have to be remanded while the federal court retains jurisdiction as to the other, non-workers’ compensation claims.

Obviously, we will encounter this opinion because, in similar scenarios, defendants will remove our lawsuits and cite the opinion when we seek a “full” remand.

Jury Verdict a Defeat for Chinese Drywall Homeowners

A federal jury last week ruled in favor of the New Orleans drywall supplier, Interior/Exterior Supply, that distributed the toxic and corrosive Knauf-brand imported Chinese drywall. Judge Fallon, the presiding judge over the Chinese drywall MDL, oversaw the week-long trial and found that the company did not know that the materials purchased from Knauf were defective.

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, a major manufacturer of problem drywall from China, agreed last year to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to repair 4,500 homes ruined with its product. That proposed settlement is still awaiting final court approval from Judge Fallon.

One of the major impacts of this verdict is how it affects other distributors of Knauf-brand drywall and Taishan-brand drywall in the MDL and the many other state-filed cases throughout the United States.

 

Heartbreaking Story On The Realities of Tort Reform

Al.com published a heartbreaking story on how tort reform affects an everyday Alabama family.

 

Most average Americans have been convinced that tort reform is the remedy to high insurance costs and a way to end "frivolous lawsuits" (or as the tort reformers will tell you behind closed doors-any lawsuit).

 

What they do not understand is that the average American's interests are almost never aligned with the advocates for tort reform. The responsible hospital, doctors and nurses in this story get off the hook for their actions, while the family of the injured deal with the heartbreak and the bill (not to mention the average American taxpayer footing most of the bill). Challen Stephens, the author of the piece, does a great job exposing the absurdity of Alabama's Health Care Authorities Act and its cap at $100,000. Great article that sadly will probably do nothing to change our social and political views toward tort reform.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/12/tonsillectomy_at_huntsville_ho.html#incart_river_default