Support NeoGAF

[akira28]

Let us behead him on live television, then we'll talk. Your move BP.

 

[sangreal]

damn, where do I file a claim? I want on this gravy train

 

[GungHo]

damn, where do I file a claim? I want on this gravy train

Jersey City.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

How do you measure if some one was "honestly hurt by it"?

If they're a fisherman or somebody who's livelihood is dependent on the ocean ecosystem/tourism. Or if they had property on the beach or boats or something that was damaged. Those would be very easy to prove and the lawyers would have a pretty accurate estimate of how much damage or lost income they suffered.

Numble mentioned an example of people falsely claiming that they would catch fish only for the purpose of feeding their families when in fact they didn't do that, and that there was an employee at the Court Supervised Settlement Program who was caught specifically telling his friends and family to make these types of claims which are harder to disprove.

The oil spill may have been all due to BP's corruption or negligence but you also can't let people cash in on bogus claims. I don't know if temporarily halting all payments is the most sensible move.

 

[-COOLIO-]

they need to pay until the well runs dry.

 

[Buddha Beam]

He's kinda got a point. I mean, yes they should pay for people who suffered losses and what not, but his problem seems to be that people are submitting claims for no reason.


Also: Hehehe he said troll.

He only makes the allegation that people are submitting claims for no reason. His wording alone leaves it open to a sense of interpretation. What qualifies as a loss to him? A destroyed boat? Lost income due to one's job being impacted by the spill? Probably to both. But what about waste from the spill appearing on your property? What about people who have seen their home values fall because of the spill? What about people who are impacted due to the economic fallout, like decreased tourism, for example? What if someone owns a timeshare? Do those count as losses to him? I reckon he'd say no.

Odds are most of the claims are valid if we had examples of them. I'm sure there's SOME bullshit claims, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if we had examples of most of the shit he's whining about, you'd say that's a valid claim.

There's only one damn rule when it comes to energy companies. We've learned it over the last decade. That rule is don't trust a god damned thing that comes out of their mouth. They've lied to us, cheated us, tried to fuck us over and over and over.

No, given the gravity of what they did – destroying a huge portion of the Gulf which even today hasn't recovered – they have every reason to be as liberal and loose with the claims process as need be.

 

[mre]

If they're a fisherman or somebody who's livelihood is dependent on the ocean ecosystem/tourism. Or if they had property on the beach or boats or something that was damaged. Those would be very easy to prove and the lawyers would have a pretty accurate estimate of how much damage or lost income they suffered.

Right, but this absolutely destroyed the tourism industry in the Gulf, which had a ripple effect felt by those far, far from the coast.

People canceled trips to the Gulf and took their money elsewhere. The individuals or businesses in the tourism industry then had less money to spend at other area businesses, who then had less money to spend, and so on and so forth.

The same ripple effect was seen from the sea food industry as well.

So how do you really measure who has been affected by the oil spill and who was not?

Well, speaking strictly for businesses, BP agreed during the negotiations that any business located within a certain distance of the coast was unquestionably harmed by the spill and entitled to compensation. They also agreed that the only way to fairly determine whether a business not directly on the coast (but located within a specified geographical boundary) was affected by the oil spill and is therefore eligible to file a claim for business economic losses, was to look at the revenue of that business before the oil spill, during the year in which the oil spill occurred, and during the year following the oil spill. If a pattern can be discerned from the revenue (a dip from 2007/2008/2009 to 2010 and a recovery in 2011) then the business is eligible to file a claim. That's it.

Now, the settlement excludes businesses in certain industries, but other than that as long as your business was located within a specified geographical area and had its revenue fit this pattern, your business is eligible for compensation.

BP negotiated this settlement agreement, including the causation elements that I set out above. Is this a bad deal? From BP's perspective, it certainly is, especially when you consider that many businesses who were probably unaffected by the oil spill were trending on a decline during this time period as a result of the overall performance of the economy. Maybe BP was gambling that the general economic circumstances of the nation prior to the oil spill in 2010 would cause a large percentage of business to be unable to demonstrate the required dip in their 2010 revenues. Nobody outside of BP knows what they were thinking. However, the settlement agreement is what it was negotiated to be, and BP has to live with it.

 

[Jhriad]

*reads part of thread and gets ready to hit reply*

Well, speaking strictly for businesses, BP agreed during the negotiations that any business located within a certain distance of the coast was unquestionably harmed by the spill and entitled to compensation. They also agreed that the only way to fairly determine whether a business not directly on the coast (but located within a specified geographical boundary) was affected by the oil spill and is therefore eligible to file a claim for business economic losses, was to look at the revenue of that business before the oil spill, during the year in which the oil spill occurred, and during the year following the oil spill. If a pattern can be discerned from the revenue (a dip from 2007/2008/2009 to 2010 and a recovery in 2011) then the business is eligible to file a claim. That's it.

Oh, I see mre has this well in hand. Carry on.

 

[GungHo]

BP negotiated this settlement agreement, including the causation elements that I set out above. Is this a bad deal? From BP's perspective, it certainly is, especially when you consider that many businesses who were probably unaffected by the oil spill were trending on a decline during this time period as a result of the overall performance of the economy. Maybe BP was gambling that the general economic circumstances of the nation prior to the oil spill in 2010 would cause a large percentage of business to be unable to demonstrate the required dip in their 2010 revenues. Nobody outside of BP knows what they were thinking. However, the settlement agreement is what it was negotiated to be, and BP has to live with it.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Obviously the solution is tort reform

signed,

every company ever

 

[demosthenes]

The title of the OP isn't exactly accurate.....

Yep and nobody is reading the article.

 

[Jazzy Network]

/facepalm

People need to read the article.

 

[Agnostic]

I have no problem with ending monetary damages as long as we put people who work for BP in prison.

 

[kehs]

And if you travel from the panhandle of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, the beaches are clean, the tourism is good, the fishing is good. The Gulf has bounced back really well. And I’d like to think that we played a big role.

Go get fucked.

Fucking scum.

 

[BeerSnob]

I have no problem with ending monetary damages as long as we put people who work for BP in prison.

I have no problem with this. Stop paying the agreed settlement, and you'll stop being allowed to see sunlight. Everyone wins.