Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

A Year After Gulf Tragedy, Offshore Oil Companies Still Shielded by Liability Limits

By

The victims' families have failed in their efforts to get decades old maritime laws changed.

PrintPRINT
When the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 men at sea last April and set off the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the tragedy exposed a number of weaknesses-not least of which were decades-old laws that limited the liability of major players.

The Oil Pollution Act capped the amount BP (BP) owed in damages for the spill at $75 million-a legal limit that, under public pressure, BP ultimately volunteered not to invoke.

BP and its contractors also were shielded by maritime laws that limited how much victims' families could win by filing lawsuits. Because the deaths took place offshore, the companies could only be sued for future wages, minus taxes and expected living costs, and not for pain and suffering or other punitive damages commonly recoverable in fatal onshore accidents.

Transocean (RIG), the owner of the sunken rig, also has invoked a 160-year-old maritime law to limit its liability to about $27 million-the value of the rig-in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Whether that holds up in court remains to be seen.

In the year that has passed since the spill, efforts to raise or do away with these liability restrictions have failed. Lobbying by the oil industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the cruise ship industry, together with opposition from some lawmakers from oil-producing states, delayed and ultimately killed legislation that would have lifted all three liability limits.

In January, the presidential commission investigating the Deepwater Horizon disaster released its final report and issued a few key recommendations, such as lifting the $75 million liability cap on economic damages.

Fran Ulmer was on that commission. In a call with reporters last week, she criticized Congress for its inaction on the liability limit.

"It hasn't been changed in 20 years. It really shows you how inadequate it is," Ulmer said. "If you don't raise the liability limit, you're in a situation where either taxpayers end up footing the bill, or injured parties do, which seems fundamentally unfair."

BP has said the $75 million cap is "irrelevant" because the company already promised to pay "all legitimate claims" for economic damage. (Here's how that turned out.) The American Petroleum Institute, the major oil industry trade group, told lawmakers last June that while "changes are needed" to the liability cap, removing it or raising it arbitrarily could kill jobs, reduce offshore production and harm U.S. energy security.

Tell that to Keith Jones, for whom the issue of oil company liability is personal. Jones' son, Gordon Jones, died instantly in the April 20 blast, leaving behind his widow, Michelle, and two young sons. The Jones family has spent much of the past year fighting to get Congress to change the Death on the High Seas Act and put potential liability for offshore accidents on par with liability for onshore accidents. Litigation over Gordon's death is ongoing.

Several Deepwater Horizon families have settled wrongful-death cases. Some received settlements in the $8 million to $9 million range, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Jones, who is also an attorney, told me that for the Deepwater Horizon incident, public attention, as well as the federal government's civil suit against BP and its partners, have made larger-than-required settlements politically expedient. But that doesn't mean that the law limiting liability shouldn't be changed, he said.

"The sad truth is that pretty soon somebody else is going to get killed on high seas. It's going to happen again," Jones told me.

And if that incident causes less environmental damage and gets less attention, those victims' families may have to contend with the liability limits, he said. Without the public pressure, those companies may not be willing to settle for any more than they must.

"It needs to be changed," Jones said. "If all these companies can care about is money, then they need to keep in mind that when they put men at risk, that costs money too. If you can't bring yourself to consider it for any other reason, think of it that way."

This article by Marian Wang originally appeared on ProPublica.org.

< Previous
  • 1
Next >
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PrintPRINT

Busy? Subscribe to our free newsletter!

Submit
 

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE