More

Exxon Valdez Lawyer: Louisianans, 'To Use A Legal Term,' Are 'Just F--ked'

Oil Spill

First Posted: 06/08/10 03:07 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:45 PM ET

Long after oil stops spilling from the Gulf and the ecological catastrophe caused by the spill begins to be cleaned up, the process of determining the extent to which BP owes the afflicted will be litigated in the courts.

And while the case against the oil company seems fairly clear-cut (BP admits, after all, to being responsible for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history), a lawyer with perhaps the most relevant experience on the matter at hand is painting a depressing picture about the litigation ahead.

"[I]f you were affected in Louisiana," said Brian O'Neill, an attorney with the firm Faegre & Benson, "to use a legal term, you are just f--ked."

More than any attorney in the country, O'Neill personally understands the implications of that imprecise legal term. For more than two decades, he represented fishermen in civil cases related to the now second-most-damaging spill in U.S. history: the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. And from it, he learned valuable lessons about how to sue an oil giant for the damages it has caused -- above all, to push for the best and plan for the worst.

"In Valdez we had 32,000 legitimate claims -- that was a lot," he said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "I think there will be more claims in this one."

"These big oil companies, they have a different view of time and politics than we do," he added. "The fact that BP hard-asses it a little bit for 5 to 10 to 15 years, despite all the bad publicity there may be between segments of society and BP as a result [of this spill]. Exxon sure weathered it really well. The market went up the next day for Exxon stock [after the settlement]. They just thrived despite treating an entire state poorly. And there is a lesson there for BP, and that is: it really doesn't matter whether you treat these people nicely or not. The only difference is if you extract oil. It sounds cynical but it might be true."

The similarities between the two crises are telling in many ways. When Exxon's ship hit Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef -- in the process, releasing an estimated minimum of 10.8 million gallons of oil into the water -- the company pledged (like BP has done now) that they would cover the entire cost of the cleanup and all legitimate claims of damages. Two decades of litigation and appeals resulted in punitive damages being reduced from $5 billion to $500 million.

The irony, as O'Neill tells it, is that the law Congress passed in the wake of that spill -- the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 -- may end up hindering the type of relief that Gulf residents can expect currently. Under that legislation, a $75 million cap was placed on economic damages that an oil company can pay as a penalty for a spill (this isn't true, O'Neill notes, in states that have passed their own liability caps -- of which Louisiana isn't one). Congress is currently trying to lift that cap. But there are constitutional questions about whether it can do so retroactively to cover BP.

"Constitutionally, I don't know whether you can do that. I don't know whether it is ex post facto," O'Neill said. "It will likely be challenged. I would, if I was representing BP."

There are other problems that the Exxon Valdez vet recognized when discussing the forthcoming courtroom battles for BP. There are questions, for starters, as to who actually can sue the oil company under the Oil Pollution Act law and whether, in fact, those 11 workers killed on the rig will have their settlements capped by the Death On the High Seas Act. Mainly, however, O'Neill is concerned over the pervasive influence that the oil industry has on all sector of governance -- which he predicts will weigh heavily on the legal process.

"This is more important than banks," he said. "This is oil. And at some point in time, the administration and the states will resolve all their dealings and it will leave fisherman and the tourist industry to resolve their differences in the courts. It could be another 20 years till then because BP [is] going to defend this like Exxon did."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Long after oil stops spilling from the Gulf and the ecological catastrophe caused by the spill begins to be cleaned up, the process of determining the extent to which BP owes the afflicted will be lit...
Long after oil stops spilling from the Gulf and the ecological catastrophe caused by the spill begins to be cleaned up, the process of determining the extent to which BP owes the afflicted will be lit...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,301
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (30 total)
  1 of 9  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Marcospinelli 03:04 PM on 06/08/2010
Yesterday, Obama expressed repressed anger, sarcasm and snark, and it provided an insight into what's wrong with him -- He's angry at the wrong people, "the talking heads". Not BP.

Then, in the face of the rising anger on the Gulf Coast over the loss of jobs and income from a drilling moratorium, Obama said he's moving quickly to release new safety requirements that would allow the reopening  Read More...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Capibara
06:17 PM on 06/09/2010
Could be a boom for trial lawyers then? Anyone know which law firms are representing BP?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
up420oz
05:28 PM on 06/09/2010
??????
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/maddow-doing-crucial-repo_b_606013.html

Once again, Rachel Maddow is showing all other reporters where the real scandal is, reguarding BP clean up.

This story, CNN's Ed Henry: Give Fox News Helen Thomas's Seat In White House Briefing Room. is sickening.

& really, I don't care to see CNN and Fox deciding on who gets the seat. Any use of "traditions " or "values" of the press making this decision is voided as soon as Fox entered the consideration.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/ed-henry-give-fox-news-he_n_605843.html
07:27 PM on 06/24/2010
Could the Obama administration use other means to extract reparations from BP?

For example 1) threatening to withhold all of BP's access to Federal Lands and Waters, unless they pay in full, and in a timely manner.
Or 2) Invoking emergency powers, as was done in the 2008/2009 Economic Crisis and then seizing BP America and selling off it's assets.

Really the scope of the disaster should make these options ones to be seriously considered in light of the reparations outcome of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

BP broke the mold with this disaster, so the Obama administration therefore would be right to continue to break the mold with how the reparations are handled this time...
.
01:19 PM on 06/09/2010
Anyone see the British Government step up to help....OOOPS! They are entertaining Tony Hayward and making sure he enjoys his million $ bonus for putting up with the dumb YANKS!
12:06 PM on 06/09/2010
These people are ph ucked, lawsuits will take decades. The gulf will be unusable (except for oil drilling) for the next century.

oil production will peak in the gulf in the next 36-48 months, after that we will be left with nothing

Only with gas over $5 at the pump will we see any real change, but that's after our economy comes to a screeching halt.
11:02 AM on 06/09/2010
How will BP ever pay all the industries that profit from the Gulf region back?! Pay everyone a salary based on the last three years of receipts?! Offer free University tuition to completely retrain entire sectors?! Spearhead the green movement and fund a whole new sector? How is this ever going to be set right?!
01:18 PM on 06/09/2010
BP will change their name and move on laughing all the way to the bank making billions per day in their other businesses. ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER BILLION $$$ TO BE MADE OFF THE DUMB YANKS, right Tony????
10:49 AM on 06/09/2010
where are the tankers to suck up the mess? waiting for the price to go up?
where are the solar panels?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jeremyfive
10:30 AM on 06/09/2010
You can include those of us who enjoy seafood in our diets. . . we're f**ked, too.

The human cost of the disaster is as yet determined.
10:12 AM on 06/09/2010
If Bobby Jindal had the stones like an Eddie Edwards or a Huey Long he'd have his own fix and he'd be out there SAVING HIS STATE!!!!!!!
09:06 AM on 06/09/2010
Yes, this attorney might have experience, no doubt; but, the citizens of the U.S. are ticked off majorly......BP will pay and not in 20 years......or we can boot them out of the U.S., boycott, etc. They will treat all the coast and the people they affected with respect and the $$ deserved and livelihoods in ruins or they will definately feel the wrath of just plain old Americans......Pay attention BP, we are....and you are impressing us, so far, in a way that is on the very negative side...Full disclosure......NOW. No more "supposing" on our nation's part as to the full extent of how many gallons per day are being released... Immediate compensation, ongoing, to the people and livlihoods you are leaving in ruins, they have bills too (and families).
08:41 AM on 06/09/2010
Your only recourse is "the courts". Has anybody tried that recently? I have and its a sham.
Apparently they can't even find enough judges in LA that don't have financial ties to the oil industry to try these cases. And unless there is an obvious victory coming, lawyers won't take the case.
08:39 AM on 06/09/2010
Probably the most infuriating aspect of the BP spill is the lack of desire to do the right thing. In the end we will find that more money was spent on PR, litigation to reduce culpability, obfuscation of facts, and general misdirection than will be spent on cleanup and restitution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
08:30 AM on 06/09/2010
I'm 57 years old and I doubt I'll be alive to see BP pay for the clean up of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, and anywhere else this oil goes.

I know I'll be alive to see the stock market respond to news that this may be the case.
08:30 AM on 06/09/2010
Brian may be a bit frustrated here with his representation of Alaska plaintiffs, but he failed to disclose that it was the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that was directly responsible for many of the delays. Louisianians will not have to suffer this forum.

And, Alaskans were compensated for their claims from Valdez, either by settling or from the verdict rendered by a jury of their peers. It was only the punitive damages that were reduced by the Supreme Court, damages not designed to compensate but to alter future behavior.

As to the cap on damages, Exxon could have interposed a limitation of liability defense, arguing that their damages were limited to the value of the vessel. It is a common maritime law defense, and Brian knows this. However, Exxon chose to pay for and settle all meritorious claims. Similarly, BP will not use the $75M cap as a means of thwarting legitimate claims.
gentlewomanfarmer
Make hay while the sun shines.
08:54 AM on 06/09/2010
There is also some small comfort in knowing that the costs BP will incur to mount its defenses will likewise be enormous - although, again, that money would be better spent on cleanup.

However, Louisianians and others in the Fifth Circuit apparently have their own problems with judges recusing themselves, the oil gusher having permeated our system of justice long before the BP disaster.

Obama needs to advance the establishment of a special Article III court to hear these claims exclusively. The judges should be quickly confirmed - I'd love to see a conservative member of Congress threaten to filibuster these proceedings - and the process can unfold.
02:52 PM on 06/09/2010
I agree- not only should these cases be tying up the regular courts system, but this situation has national implications, and should not be handled by local courts. Establish a special court to hear these claims - I would love to try and see what senators would dare try and stall judicial nominations for it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
angusmciver
Feels Empty
11:41 AM on 06/09/2010
As to caps on damages, a jury awarded punitive damages, for punishing Exxon for its acts that was reduced from 5 billion to 1/2 billion do in part to Exxon arguing 200 year old maritime laws. Read arguments @ Exxon vs Baker SCOTUS WIKI. These laws are antiquated when it comes to Big Oil but they worked for Exxon. The Court's decision was divided, and was decided by one vote. Exxon didn't come close to paying all that was deserved to those affected. Although the 9th was slow with its decisions and delays it was Exxon's CEO that stated that they would spend every dime they had before paying a penny of those awards. They litigated the hell out of it. Take a runner . Break his leg. Fix him and even throw in a years earnings. The poor sot will never earn a living racing again. Prince William Herring are for now a thing of the past. There is still oil on the beaches. Exxon had a hand in that. BP will break the backs of many that rely on the resources within the gulf. And as with Exxon they will most likely do every thing they can to do the very least they can because profits are at stake. What about there shareholders? They will take care of their own. Thats natural, but it's not just. Brian may be frustrated but thats because Brian is right. He just could not battle the power of oil.
10:02 PM on 06/09/2010
Actually, I did read the Supreme Court's opinion. Your citation is to the arguments presented by the parties, not the Supreme Court's actual opinion. The S. Ct. looked at The Amicable Nancy decision which, if adopted as Exxon urged, would have dismissed punitive damages against the company altogether. Instead of adopting this decision, however, the S.Ct. left intact the 9th Circuit's ruling allowing an assessment of punitive damages. The S.Ct. then reduced the damages using an approach based on a 1:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages. The reduction in punitive damages had absolutely nothing to do with the 200-year-old maritime decision cited by Exxon.

As to the herring, you are correct that they have never returned in the population density that existed pre-spill. But there is conflicting evidence as to why. Most of the other wildlife populations are fully recovered. The salmon run the year after the spill was double was it was the year before the spill. How do you account for this?

In the end, the Valdez spill was a tragic event that occurred in one of the most beautiful areas of the world. But Exxon fully compensated those who were affected. And then, on top of the compensatory damages, plaintiffs have received their share of the punitive damages award.
08:10 AM on 06/09/2010
When all is said and done, and given our relatively short attention span, will the results of this spill be any different than the Exxon Valdez. BP is still more concerned with PR than anything else and in the end will wriggle off the hook when it comes to fulfilling it's responsibilities. History has taught us that $ only cares about the $, and they can weather any PR disaster as long as they get to keep the $.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctorj2u
08:15 AM on 06/09/2010
Very well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeaderofMen
Bilingual former US Marine.
07:47 AM on 06/09/2010
I find it amazing that despite this being such a huge disaster, with an admission of guilt by the responsible party, that US voters still aren't convinced that we should invest heavily in the development of alternative forms of transportation fuels.

But I don't find it amazing that lawyers have 2 decades of experience on the Exxon Valdez disaster to know precisely how to stave off the inevitable lawsuits.

And I want everyone to remember that this disaster happened during Bobby Jindal's watch. Oh, and Haley Barbour's watch.