902 F. Supp. 2d 808
E.D. La.2012Background
- This MDL concerns three challenged claim types—Pure Stigma, BP Dealer, and Recreation—arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
- The Bl Master Complaint asserted OPA, general maritime, and state-law claims; the B1 Order upheld admiralty jurisdiction with maritime law supplement and Robins Dry Dock constraints.
- A proposed class-action settlement for economic loss/property damage was preliminarily approved; a final fairness hearing was scheduled for November 2012.
- Motions to dismiss the three claim types were filed by BP, Cameron, Halliburton, Transocean, and M-I; the PSC opposed, with Sellno and Tobatex participants opposing certain claims.
- The court narrowed and defined Pure Stigma, BP Dealer, and Recreation Claims for purposes of dismissal and issued rulings on each category.
- The court granted the motions to dismiss all three claim types to the extent defined as Pure Stigma, BP Dealer (certain consumer-animosity claims), and Recreation Claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Pure Stigma Claims viable under OPA, maritime, or state law? | Sellno argues Pure Stigma viable under OPA and maritime/state law. | Defendants contend Pure Stigma not viable under B or E, and preempted by Robins; state-law theories fail. | Pure Stigma Claims are not viable; dismissed. |
| Does Robins Dry Dock bar Pure Stigma Claims? | Sellno asserts intentional acts defeat Robins Dry Dock. | Defendants maintain Robins applies to unintentional torts; intent does not override. | Robins Dry Dock bars Pure Stigma Claims. |
| Are Pure Stigma Claims viable under OPA Subsection (E)? | Plaintiffs argue Subsection (E) allows recovery for profits/earning capacity. | Defendants argue Pure Stigma seek unrealized property value losses, not profits or earning capacity. | Not viable under Subsection (E). |
| Are Pure Stigma Claims viable under OPA Subsection (B)? | Plaintiffs contend injury to/damage of property covers stigmatic value loss. | Defendants contend no physical injury or destruction; intangible brand value not recoverable. | Not viable under Subsection (B). |
| Are BP Dealer Claims viable under OPA or state law, including Tobatex’s theories and Grubart nexus? | PSC argues BP Dealer Claims are recoverable under Subsection (B)/(E) or state law in Tobatex form. | Court finds BP Dealer Claims not viable under OPA (intangible brand) and under state law as applicable; Tobatex analysis does not salvage them. | BP Dealer Claims dismissed under OPA; Tobatex’s state-law theory not adopted here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (tests for admiralty jurisdiction: locus and nexus)
- TEST-BANK, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985) (Robins Dry Dock limits: injury to proprietary interest; onshore losses)
- Sekco Energy, Inc. v. M/V Margaret Chouest, 820 F. Supp. 1008 (E.D. La. 1993) (physical injury required for Subsection (B))
- Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 61 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1995) (nexus and locus tests; maritime activity relationship)
- Helaire v. Mobil Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1983) (maritime negligence effects on land-based torts; vessel-centered liability)
- Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001) (reputation/stigma damages; application outside Robins Dry Dock)