Id 100028922 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
710 F. App'x 184
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Claimant operated an extended-stay motel in Beaumont, Texas, and filed a Business Economic Loss Claim under the Deepwater Horizon Settlement seeking spill-related revenue losses.
- Exhibit 4B requires claimants in Claimant’s location to satisfy one of three revenue tests: v-shaped, modified v-shaped, or decline-only; each compares a pre-spill Benchmark Period to post-spill revenues.
- Program accountants initially used a 2008–2009 Benchmark Period and concluded Claimant failed the v-shaped tests but satisfied step one of the decline-only test, yet failed step two (causation); Claim was denied.
- On re-review accountants discovered Claimant had only five months of 2008 records (first full month was August 2008), making 2008 ineligible; 2009-only was the only valid Benchmark Period. Accountants updated notes but failed to correct the Causation Results section in the supporting schedules.
- After re-review and reconsideration (during which Claimant did not provide pre-August 2008 records), the Claims Administrator and Appeal Panel denied the claim, concluding Claimant could not meet Exhibit 4B under the 2009-only Benchmark Period. Appeal Panel found Program had given notice and opportunities to respond.
- Claimant sought discretionary district-court review in E.D. La.; the district court declined review. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying discretionary review of Appeal Panel decision | District court should have reviewed because Appeal Panel departed from past Panel practice and remand was warranted | District court has broad discretion; no controlling split or substantial administrative impact; facts differ from other Panel remands | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether an Appeal Panel split exists warranting review | Appeal Panel allegedly conflicted with prior Panel decisions that remanded to Claims Administrator | Prior Panel decisions turned on different facts (no notice/opportunity); here Claimant received notice and chances to respond | No split: different factual posture; not a substantial administrative issue |
| Whether the dispute presents a pressing question of Settlement Agreement interpretation | Claimant argues procedural fairness/notice issue requires review | BP/Program: dispute is factual (whether notice/opportunity occurred), not interpretation of rules | Not a pressing interpretive question; discretionary review not required |
| Whether the Appeal Panel misapplied or contradicted the Settlement Agreement | Claimant contends misapplication by failing to remand despite calculation errors and confusing schedules | Program notified Claimant repeatedly; Appeal Panel reasonably concluded Settlement’s notice/opportunity requirements were met | No misapplication; decision not incongruent with the Settlement Agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Claimant ID 100212278 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 848 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2017) (discussing scope of district-court discretionary review under the Settlement)
- Holmes Motors, Inc. v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 829 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2016) (discretion to deny review and limits on mandatory review)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d 986 (5th Cir. 2015) (addressing district-court review standards under the Settlement)
- Claimant ID 100250022 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 847 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 2017) (explaining when an Appeal Panel decision is "incongruent" with Settlement Agreement language)