In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", 808 F. Supp. 2d 943

Background

MDL involves the Deepwater Horizon oil spill with B1 Master Complaint alleging non-governmental economic loss and property damages from BP, Transocean, Halliburton, M-I, Cameron, Weatherford, Anadarko, MOEX, MOECO and Dril-Quip.
DEEPWATER HORIZON was a mobile offshore drilling unit operating on navigable Gulf waters; BOP and drill string are alleged as vessel gear.
Court concludes admiralty jurisdiction and OCSLA jurisdiction apply; state law is not adopted as surrogate under OCSLA.
OPA provides limits and a presentment procedure; its savings provisions preserve some maritime law remedies and state authority but do not broadly preserve all state-law claims.
Robins Dry Dock pre-OPA generally bars pure economic-loss claims absent the commercial fishermen exception; OPA permits economic-loss recovery and punitive-damage possibilities under maritime law for certain claimants.
Key issues include vessel status, choice of law, OPA presentment, who may be liable (non-Responsible vs. Responsible Parties), and whether punitive damages remain available.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Deepwater Horizon is a vessel for admiralty purposes	B1 alleges vessel status as a floating drilling unit.	Cameron argues it was not a vessel when moored to seabed with 5,000 ft drill pipe.	Deepwater Horizon is a vessel; not a fixed structure.
Whether OCSLA or admiralty governs B1 claims and applicable law	State law may supplement maritime law where not displaced.	OCSLA or adjacent-state law governs; state law may apply via PLT test.	Admiralty law governs; OCSLA does not adopt adjacent-state law here.
Whether state-law claims are preempted by maritime law and/or OPA	State law can supplement maritime law; FPDPCA claims may apply.	State-law claims are not viable in offshore context and OPA preempts them.	State-law claims are dismissed; no surrogate state-law under OCSLA; preemption by maritime law.
Whether OPA displaces general maritime law claims for non-Responsible Parties	OPA allows broad economic-loss recovery and punitive damages under maritime law.	OPA preempts pre-OPA general maritime remedies against Responsible Parties; limits apply.	OPA does not displace general maritime law claims against non-Responsible Parties; presentment governs claims against Responsible Parties.
Whether presentment under OPA is a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit against the Responsible Party	Presentment requirements are satisfied for many B1 claimants.	Presentment is mandatory and many B1 claims may be dismissed for lack of presentment.	Presentment is mandatory; Court tolerates dismissal without prejudice for non-presented claims due to MDL logistics.
Whether punitive damages remain available under general maritime law	Punitive damages are available under general maritime law post-OPA.	OPA might preclude punitive damages in oil-spill liability.	Punitive damages available under general maritime law for both Responsible and non-Responsible Parties where pre-OPA claims exist.

Key Cases Cited

Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1959) (vessel status of floating platforms for admiralty purposes)
Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 280 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2002) (special-purpose movable drilling rigs are vessels; retention of control matters)
Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc., 589 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2009) (PLT test for applying surrogate state law under OCSLA; en banc discussion)
Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) (state-law remedies can supplement maritime law where no federal remedy exists)
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (CWA preemption analysis; no displacement of punitive damages by federal statute)
Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (punitive damages and maintenance and cure context; preemption considerations)
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (punitive damages in maritime context and statutory remedies)