FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEWS ADVISORY
February 16, 2011
For More Information, contact:
Luther Strange
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Alabama Attorney General
Suzanne Webb (334) 242-7351
Page 1 of 1
AG STRANGE COMMENTS ABOUT OIL SPILL CLAIMS PROCESS
Attorney General Luther Strange today strongly expressed his concerns
about proposed procedures and forms for compensation of losses due to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In a letter to Kenneth Feinberg, Administrator of
the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, Attorney General Strange outlines his reasons for
adamantly opposing the proposals that were put forth by the Administrator for a
period of public comment. On behalf of the State of Alabama, Attorney General
Strange sent the attached letter as a part of formal public comment process. He
indicated that he will discuss these concerns in further detail in an upcoming
filing to U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
–30–
501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300
www.ago.state.al.us
S T A T E O F A L A B A M A
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
501 WASHINGTON AVENUE
LUTHER STRANGE
MONTGOMERY, AL 36130
AT T O RNE Y GENE R AL
(334) 242-7300
WWW.AGO.STATE.AL.US
February 16, 2011
Mr. Kenneth Feinberg
Gulf Coast Claims Facility
The Willard Office Building
1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 390
Washington, DC 20004-1008
Dear Mr. Feinberg:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the draft proposal
of Payment Options, Eligibility and Substantiation Criteria, and Final Payment
Methodology, dated February 2, 2011 (the “Proposed Rules”). Though my
office requested an advance copy of the Proposed Rules to review, your office
did not provide one.
As you and I have discussed previously, the Gulf Coast Claims Facilit y
(“GCCF”) process must be transparent and responsive to the needs of those
individuals and businesses harmed as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill (the “Oil Spill”). After reviewing the Proposed Rules, I have several
concerns to bring to your attention:
- Causation Standard: The Proposed Rules do not use the Oil Pollution
Act (“OPA”) standard of causation for the determination of damages. Despite
numerous face-to-face discussions with you and your staff regarding this issue,
the Proposed Rules continue to require claimants to prove a “direct” link
between the oil spill and the claimed losses. Under OPA, BP is required to
compensate for damages that arise “as a result of” the Oil Spill – a point
recently reiterated to you by the United States Department of Justice. Yet, the
GCCF’s standard for causation seems to be constantly evolving – yet never
explicitly defined. More importantly, your interpretation of “direct” causation
has never matched what is required of BP under OPA in form and substance.
The Proposed Rules should adhere to the OPA terminology, and the evaluation
of claims by the CGGF must use the OPA “as a result of” standard, not a more
stringent direct causation standard.
Mr. Kenneth Feinberg
February 16, 2011
Page Two
Let me stress the importance of this issue. The causation standard for
evaluating damage claims has been the number one topic of GCCF complaints
directed to my office. We have heard instance after instance of claims being
denied because the GCCF found no “direct” link between the Oil Spill and the
damages incurred. Even entire industries, such as the title company industry,
had claims denied outright based on the GCCF’s use of a much too narrow
causation standard – again, a standard the Justice Department has eschewed.
The final rules adopted by the GCCF must address this problem by following the
mandates set forth in OPA and working to compensate for damages instead of
summarily denying claims.
- Transparency: The Proposed Rules do not include provisions that
ensure that the GCCF process is transparent and responsive to the individuals
and businesses who file claims. The Proposed Rules should clearly state what
information and documentation the GCCF requires from a claimant at the time a
claim is filed. If required documentation is missing from a submitted claim, the
GCCF should contact the claimant and request such missing items. Should the
GCCF deny an Interim or Final Claim, the claimant must be provided detailed
reasons for the denial. Denial of claims without providing a reason and without
providing a claimant the opportunity to provide additional documentation
needed to assess a claim is unacceptable. - Releases: I once again renew my objection to your requirement that
claimants sign a waiver before receiving a Final Claim payment. As we
discussed when you visited my office several weeks ago, the GCCF release form
is overly broad, and you are under no obligation to require a release before
paying a claim.
Finally, I would again urge you to work with, and be responsive to, the
staffs of Congressman Bonner and Senators Shelby and Sessions. The
caseworkers in those offices are on the front lines of the oil spill disaster and
deal directly with the claimants. Our office has met with you and
representatives from your office on several occasions to no avail, and the
congressional staffs report similar results. Your promises of responsiveness and
consideration are not matching the actions of you and your staff.
Mr. Kenneth Feinberg
February 16, 2011
Page Three
My concerns outlined above will be more fully discussed in Alabama’s
filing this week with Judge Barbier, a filing that will include anecdotal
examples illustrating the deficiencies of the current GCCF process. I would
appreciate your careful consideration of my concerns and look forward to seeing
their incorporation into the final guidelines forthcoming from the GCCF.
Sincerely,
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
