Recent Deepwater Horizon Rulings Address Key Issues In Litigation
United States District Judge Carl Barbier recently issued a broad order on pending motions to dismiss in the multi-district litigation arising out of the April 2010 loss of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. (In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.))
The dismissal motions pertained to the court’s “B1” pleading bundle, which collects together over 100,000 individual claims for private economic loss and property damages. The B1 pleading bundle “master complaint” asserts claims against BP defendants and Transocean defendants, among others. The claims allege causes of action under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), various state laws, and general maritime law.
As described by the court, in their various motions the defendants sought to dismiss all claims brought pursuant to either general maritime law or state law, leaving only OPA-related claims.
In its extensive discussion resolving the dismissal motions, the court determined, among other things:
- The Deepwater Horizon was at all material times a vessel in navigation.
- Admiralty jurisdiction exists because the defendants' alleged torts occurred upon navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico, disrupted maritime commerce, and the operations of the Deepwater Horizon bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.
- Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) jurisdiction is also present because the casualty occurred in the context of exploration or production of minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf.
- Claims alleged under state law, whether statutory or common law, had to be dismissed because they were preempted by maritime law.
- General maritime law claims that did not allege physical damage to a proprietary interest had to be dismissed under the Fifth Circuit’s “Robins Dry Dock” rule, unless they fell into an exception for commercial fishermen. In addition, OPA claims for economic loss need not allege physical damage to a proprietary interest, the court said.
- OPA does not displace general maritime law claims against “non-Responsible” parties, while conversely, OPA does displace general maritime law claims against Responsible Parties, but only with regard to procedure (such as OPA’s presentment requirement).
- Presentment under OPA is a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit against a Responsible Party.
- There is no presentment requirement for claims against non-Responsible Parties.
- Notably, the court ruled that claims for punitive damages are available for general maritime law claimants against Responsible Parties and non-Responsible Parties.
Trial in the case is scheduled for February 2012.
Arnold & Itkin LLP attorneys serve clients in Texas and throughout the nation, handling maritime injury and many other types of complex cases.
If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, use the form on this page to contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultationn or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.
