Id 100250022 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1358
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- ACR (Alabama Coastal Radiology, P.C.), a group of 16 radiologists, filed a Business Economic Loss (BEL) claim under the Deepwater Horizon Settlement’s Multi‑Facility Business Framework for a reading room at Infirmary 65 (owned by Infirmary Health Services, IHS).
- ACR provides radiology services under contract to IHS; IHS owns the reading room and equipment, and ACR does not pay rent or lease, nor maintain separate administrative offices for that location.
- CSSP Policy 467 defines a "Facility" to require (1) a separate physical structure, (2) owned/leased/operated by the business, and (3) a location where the business "performs and/or manages" operations, including the ability to identify location-specific revenues/expenses.
- CSSP denied ACR’s claim (and re‑review/reconsideration requests); an Appeal Panel affirmed, noting ACR did not pay typical tenant expenses and only provided contracted radiology services.
- ACR sought discretionary review in the Eastern District of Louisiana; the district court denied review. ACR appealed the denial to the Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Infirmary 65 reading room qualifies as an ACR "Facility" under the Settlement Agreement | The reading room is a separate and distinct office space under ACR’s exclusive use and control, qualifying as a Facility | The reading room is an IHS facility; ACR does not bear rent/maintenance costs, so it cannot be a separate Facility for BEL relief | Denial of discretionary review affirmed: Appeal Panel did not contradict or misapply the Settlement Agreement; ACR failed to meet Policy 467 criteria |
| Whether the Appeal Panel’s decision contradicted or misapplied the Settlement Agreement such that the district court abused discretion in denying review | ACR argues Policy 467’s "if any" language allows a Facility finding despite lack of identifiable expenses | BP argues BEL Framework aims to compensate actual economic loss; lacking rent/expenses shows no separate Facility for ACR | Held: No contradiction or misapplication; Panel’s emphasis on inability to identify location-specific expenses is consistent with Policy 467 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 910 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. La. 2012) (background on the oil spill and Settlement Agreement)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) (affirming the settlement framework)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d 1003 (5th Cir. 2015) (describing procedure for appeals to the district court)
- Holmes Motors, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc., 829 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard: district court denial of discretionary review reviewed for abuse of discretion)