by

According to an AP report, BP yesterday admitted that more oil than it originally estimated is leaking into the Gulf. This news, coming roughly one month after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank, is heightening Gulf Coast residents’ worries about the amount of damage likely to occur. A spokesman for BP, Mark Proegler, said that efforts over the weekend to insert a tube into the leaking pipe were successful, and that the tube is now siphoning off 210,000 gallons of oil per day. That figure is more than the total amount of oil BP and the U.S. Coast Guard originally estimated was leaking from the well, and it is clear that the tube is not capturing all the escaping oil. Mr. Proegler declined to estimate how much oil is still spewing into the Gulf, but some scientists who have viewed the underwater videos of the leak have suggested it could be as much as ten times the official estimate.

Meanwhile, crude oil began washing into the marshes on the state’s southeastern tip and the Breton National Wildlife Refuge, where scientists believe oil has killed some rare birds that reside there. “This is the heavy oil that everyone’s been fearing that is here now,” Gov. Bobby Jindal said during a boat tour of the wetlands. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as of May 17, 29 miles of Louisiana’s coastline had already seen oil.

Adding to concerns over BP’s handling of the disaster are reports of the company’s efforts to limit the public’s view of fouled beaches in Louisiana. CBS news reports when journalists attempted on Tuesday to visit an oil-covered beach in South Pass, they were turned away by BP contractors and two U.S. Coast Guard officers aboard a boat. The officers threatened to arrest the reporters, even though the government had not closed the beach to the public. The reporters captured video of one of the officers saying, “This is [sic] BP’s rules, not ours.”

Continue reading

by

While a plaintiff may have the best case possible, things do not always work out the way they should. Lawsuits don’t just fail on their merits. Sometimes not following procedural deadlines or simply not taking action at all can spell doom as well. In an April 2010 decision, the First Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Shirley W. Fleischmann of Baton Rouge’s claim against Keith Henderson and his insurance company. They did this because three years had gone by with no action taken to move the claim forward, thus bringing into play the Louisiana Abandonment Statute.

The claim arose when Henderson’s car (driven by Jennifer Parker) struck and killed Thomas E. Fleischmann while he was walking along the roadway. Ms. Fleischmann was the victim’s widow and included Henderson and his insurance company as parties in her wrongful death lawsuit filed in April 2002. The State of Louisiana (Department of Transportation) was named as a party as well but was dismissed in 2005 because effective request for service was not made within 90 days of commencement of the action.

In September 2008 Ms. Fleischmann filed a motion for a status conference to declare she intended to move forward against Henderson and his insurance company. In December of that year both parties filed a motion and order to be dismissed from the lawsuit as well because pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 561 no action had been taken for three years. The trial court granted the order. Ms. Fleischmann filed a Motion to Reconsider the Ruling and the matter was heard in court in February 2009. The district court affirmed the dismissal and Ms. Fleischmann appealed claiming that the hearing previously held on the Department of Transportation’s Motion to Dismiss was a step in the prosecution or defense that interrupted tolling on the abandonment of her lawsuit against the other defendants. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

Continue reading

by

The Louisiana Court of Appeals’ 1979 ruling in Thompson v. Iberville Parish School Board provides insight into what factors should be considered when asking if a teacher has inappropriately punished a student. This decision reversed a previous ruling in favor of an Iberville Parish elementary school student and found in favor of the school and teacher.

12 year old Bryan Wilson was in a music class at St. Gabriel Elementary school when his teacher extended his leg and pushed him with his foot in the right buttock. The teacher claimed that it was the easiest way to get the unruly student’s attention and that he had been reprimanded previously to turn around and pay attention to no avail. Bryan on the other hand, claimed the kick was extremely hard, causing him to cry out in pain and even miss several days of school. The trial court found in Bryan’s favor and awarded his mother $500 on his behalf for pain and embarrassment suffered. They found that although corporal punishment was acceptable under Louisiana law (and teachers were provided with limited liability from civil suit), the choice of action went beyond what was considered reasonable. To the trial court, the use of a foot for corporal punishment was unreasonable no matter how much force was involved.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, and reversed the judgment, pointing to the lack of evidence of any serious injury. Bryan was examined by the school principal and a doctor that same day and there was no visible evidence of injury, nor did any abnormality appear on an x-ray. In addition, evidence had been presented at trial that Bryan was a normal, healthy child who did have a tendency to act up at school. The Court of Appeals found that although there were few situations where a kick, no matter how light, would be reasonable, this was one and that the teacher merely acted to get Bryan’s attention, not inflict pain.

Continue reading

by

In the face of the looming oil slick many estuaries and fishing grounds are being closed, leaving hundreds of Louisiana fishermen out of work. As the oil pours into the Gulf, many fishermen are wondering what’s next. While many questions are still up in the air there are a number of issues that fishermen need to be aware of.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990

The Oil Pollution Act is a federal law that, among other things, allows an affected fisherman to file a claim against BP for his lost profits caused by the oil spill in addition to any other claims he has (i.e. property damage).

Continue reading

by

With so many fishermen left out of work, individuals throughout the Gulf Coast are beginning to worry about their future. The Oil Pollution Act provides a legal solution but the ensuing lawsuits will not be helpful in the present. There are two British Petroleum programs that affected fishermen need to be aware of: their claims program and the Vessel of Opportunity program (VOP). These programs can provide immediate assistance for unemployed fishermen.

On its website and in many press releases BP has promised to take full responsibility for the damages that the oil spill has caused. This has included paying out lost-wages claims to fishermen. Under this program fishermen can recover a month in lost wages. Be aware that this recovery is handled by BP, not the National Pollution Funds Center or a court. BP will make a three-year average of a claimant’s income between January and March and pay a one month settlement. This settlement can affect a fisherman’s recovery if he later decides to sue. Currently the pay outs are around $5,000. You can contact their claim center at 1-800-440-0858. If you are not satisfied with their resolution, then you can contact the National Pollution Funds Center at 1-800-280-7118.

BP is also taking on paid volunteers to help in the clean up effort under their “Vessel of Opportunity Program.” Through this program BP employs fishermen to deploy booms in order to stem the flood of oil. BP provides much of the equipment and training to those taking part. While BP will pay fishermen who take part, it is unclear how many boats BP will hire. The last count was around 700, far less than the number of fishermen who are now unemployed.

Continue reading

by

In response to the financial hardship being faced by small business owners and employees of many different Gulf industries, BP has opened an assortment of claims offices that can help individuals looking to fill out their forms. Before visiting these sites, claimants are asked to call 1-800-440-0858.

Additionally, the Small Business Administration has opened offices where owners may discuss options available to them under the SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan program.

Click here for the addresses of the claims center nearest you.

by

In light of some of the more current events affecting citizens of Louisiana, it is important to know and understand property rights resulting from personal property damages from oil spills. Especially in the Gulf region where this event seems to be more common than it should be, you may be entilted to compensation for damaged property. Most personal propety damage as a result of an oil spill will be compensated, but it becomes complex when boats become damaged from an oil spill.


Recently, we discussed the availability of funds under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) for compensating Louisiana residents who suffer property damage as the result of an oil spill. Claims for oil damage to boats are treated as a separate category from other types of personal property under the OPA.

According to the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center web site, the owner of a boat can submit a claim for the cost of removing oil stains from his vessel (including its interior furnishings like upholstery and carpeting) so that the boat is restored to its pre-fouled condition. Claims can also be filed for damage to mechanical parts of the boat, such as an outboard motor, rudder, anchor winch, etc. Oil spills can seriously impact the value of a boat and lead to substantial deterioration of the usability of a boat.

Continue reading

by

In a previous post, we explored the role of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) in compensating Louisiana residents who incur oil removal and clean-up costs. These funds are also available for coastal residents who suffer property damage as a result of an oil spill.

According to the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center web site, the OPA permits filings for oil-related losses to real and personal property. Real property damage is defined as “injury to or economic losses resulting from destruction of land or buildings.” For example, the owner of oil-fouled waterfront property can file for reimbursement of the costs to restore the property to its pre-spill condition. Or, if the owner decides to sell the property without restoring it, he can submit a claim for the difference between its pre-spill assessed value and the reduced price he receives for the fouled property after the spill.

Personal property damage is “injury to or economic losses resulting from damages to other types property you own or lease besides real property.” For instance, a fisherman can submit a claim for the cost of cleaning or replacing a shrimp net, fishing tackle, or clothing that is fouled by oil.

Continue reading

by

In Mallett v. McNeal, 939 SO.2d 1254, 2005-2289 (La. 10/17/06), the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that an unconditional payment of a property damage claim constitutes an acknowledgement sufficient to interrupt prescription. Thus, for example, an insurance company’s tender of an unconditional payment to an injured third-party claimant is an acknowledgement, and this acknowledgment interrupts prescription. In appropriate cases, Mallett may be of assistance to plaintiffs’ attorneys, who file actions to help injury-victims recover against tortfeasors and insurance companies after the victim’s case has prescribed on its face.

The Court’s holding in Mallett was based upon two consolidated cases. In the first case, plaintiff Jason Mallett (“Mallett”) suffered injuries on January 8, 2004, when his vehicle was struck from behind by defendant Paola McNeal (“McNeal”). McNeal carried an automobile liability policy issued by defendant United States Automobile Association (“USAA”). In November 2004, USAA issued two checks to Mallett: the first for payment of property damage, and the second for additional repairs. On February, 2005, more than a year after the accident, Mallett filed suit against McNeal and USAA, claiming damages for injuries. Because the one year prescription period had run on its face, Mallett’s claim would have been barred, unless USAA’s November 2004 payments interrupted the prescriptive period.

In the second case, plaintiff Charles Richey (“Richey”) was involved in an automobile collision with defendant Kameron Dixon, who was driving a car owned by Keith Dixon (“Dixon”). Dixon was insured by defendant Infinity Insurance Company (“Infinity”). Following the collision, Infinity issued a check to Richey and stated that the check represented payment for the total loss of Richey’s vehicle. Before the end of the prescriptive period, Richey filed suit in an improper venue. Under Louisiana law, if an action is commenced in an improper venue, prescription is interrupted only as to defendants served with process within the prescriptive period. Unfortunately for Richey, no defendants were served before the end of the prescriptive period. Therefore, Richey’s claim would have been barred, unless Infinity’s issuance of checks had interrupted the prescriptive period.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design