NEW ORLEANS (CN) - More than 100,000 oil-spill claimants may seek punitive damages from BP and other defendants, but not attorney fees, a federal judge ruled. But U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier dismissed all lawsuits brought under state law, finding that oil-spill claims fall under jurisdiction of the federal Oil Pollution Act.
Barbier also dismissed plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief which would bar BP from requiring them to sign away their right to sue other oil-spill defendants for damages after settling for a "speedy and efficient recovery" from BP.
"The ... obvious flaw in plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is that nothing prohibits defendants from settling claims for economic loss. While OPA [the Oil Pollution Act] does not specifically address the use of waivers and releases by responsible parties, the statute also does not clearly prohibit it. In fact, as the court has recognized in this order, one of the goals of OPA was to allow for speedy and efficient recovery by victims of an oil spill."
Judge Barbier issued a 39-page ruling related to the B1 bundle. The ruling grants in part and denies in part party requests made related to the bundle.
The B1 pleading bundle includes all claims for private or "non-governmental economic loss and property damages" and pertains to claims for economic damages filed by fishermen, seafood processors and distributors, recreational and commercial businesses, plant and dock workers and those who worked for BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, among others who allege financial trouble as a result of the massive April 2010 spill.
"Plaintiffs allege claims under general maritime law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ... and various state laws. Under general maritime law, plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability for manufacturing and/or design defect. Under various state laws, plaintiffs allege claims for nuisance, trespass, and fraudulent concealment, and they also allege a claim for strict liability under the Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act, Fla. Stat. § 376.011, et seq. Additionally, plaintiffs seek punitive damages under all claims and request declaratory relief regarding any settlement provisions that purport to affect the calculation of punitive damages," Barbier wrote.
The "Order and Reasons (As to Motions to Dismiss the B1 Master Complaint)" states that "admiralty jurisdiction was invoked by this incident. ... Therefore, general maritime law applies to the claims of the B1 plaintiffs. Moreover, OPA applies of its own force, because that act governs, inter alia, private claims for property damage and economic loss resulting from a discharge of oil in navigable waters. ... Because OPA and/or general maritime law applies to the B1 plaintiffs' claims, state law may not be adopted as surrogate federal law under OCSLA [Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act] § 1333(a)(3)(A). ...
"But this case does not concern conduct within state borders (waters). This casualty occurred over the Outer Continental Shelf - an area of 'exclusive federal jurisdiction' - on waters deemed to be the 'high seas.' ...
"Thus, to the extent state law could apply to conduct outside state waters, in this case it must 'yield to the needs of a uniform federal maritime law.'"