Id 100236236 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
699 F. App'x 308
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Aldrich Investments owned a commercial rental property in "Zone A" of the Gulf Coast and filed a Business Economic Loss claim under the Deepwater Horizon Settlement Agreement.
- Zone A claimants need not prove causation by the spill but must show they were "doing business or operating" in the Gulf Coast Areas between April 20, 2010 and April 16, 2012 and satisfy the revenue-pattern test.
- Aldrich had no paying commercial tenant since August 2008; it had a broker whose formal agreement ended in September 2009, though the broker continued efforts to find a tenant through early 2010. Aldrich incurred significant expenses in 2010.
- The Claims Administrator denied Aldrich’s claim (no evidence of doing business/operating at the time of the spill). Re-review and reconsideration denials followed; an Appeal Panel affirmed the denial.
- The district court declined discretionary review; Aldrich appealed that denial to the Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aldrich was "doing business or operating" at time of spill | Aldrich said totality of circumstances (broker activity, expenses, attempts to lease) shows it was operating despite no 2010 revenue | BP said lack of revenue, no active lease or advertising since 2008, and broker agreement lapsed in 2009 weigh against being "doing business" | Court held factual dispute; Appeal Panel did not err in denying claim; district court did not abuse discretion in refusing review |
| Whether absence of 2010 revenue alone should decide eligibility | Aldrich argued panels improperly treated lack of 2010 revenue as dispositive and failed to apply totality test | BP argued only broker evidence supports Aldrich and is weak; absence of other factors supports denial | Court found no procedural or interpretive error; dispute was factual, not a settlement-interpretation issue |
| Whether panel split warrants district discretionary review | Aldrich asserted panel inconsistency on factors deciding "doing business" merits review | BP countered that no substantial circuit-wide interpretation issue exists; this is a single-claim factual dispute | Court applied precedent: no abuse of discretion where issue is correctness of administrative decision in a single claimant’s case |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying review | Aldrich claimed review necessary to prevent random panel outcomes affecting interpretation | BP argued discretionary review not required absent misapplication of Agreement or pressing interpretive question | Court affirmed district court: denial was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes Motors, Inc. v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 829 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing district court denial of discretionary settlement-review)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 744 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2014) (describing revenue-pattern test and Zone A rules)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d 986 (5th Cir. 2015) (clarifying district court’s discretionary-review is not mandatory)
- In re Deepwater Horizon (Smith), [citation="632 F. App'x 199"] (5th Cir. 2015) (panel split may justify review if resolution would significantly affect administration)
- In re Deepwater Horizon (Sexton), [citation="641 F. App'x 405"] (5th Cir. 2016) (denial of review appropriate where dispute is correctness of single claimant’s administrative outcome)