Court cuts Exxon Valdez judgement in half

[Judi Lynn]

Court cuts Exxon Valdez judgement in half
1989 oil tanker spill among the nation’s longest running non-criminal cases
Updated: 26 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court on Friday cut in half a $5 billion jury award for punitive damages against Exxon Mobil Corp. in the 1989 Valdez oil spill that smeared black goo across roughly 1,500 miles of Alaskan coastline.

The case, one of the nation’s longest-running, non-criminal legal disputes, stems from a 1994 decision by an Anchorage jury to award the punitive damages to 34,000 fishermen and other Alaskans. Their property and livelihoods were harmed when the Valdez oil tanker struck a charted reef, spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil.

It’s the third time the appeals court ordered the Anchorage court to reduce the $5 billion award, the nation’s largest at the time, saying it was unconstitutionally excessive in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

This time, in its 2-1 decision, the court ordered a specific amount in damages, while its previous rulings demanded a lower court to come up with its own figures.
(snip/...)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16327777/

[Judi Lynn]

1. Merry Christmas, Exxon

Merry Christmas, Exxon

SAN FRANCISCO
December 22, 2006 11:02am

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday slashed the punitive damages amount that Exxon Mobile Corp. (NYSE: XOM) and its subsidiary, Exxon Shipping Co. must pay for the 1989 grounding of its supertanker, Exxon Valdez, in Alaska.

The grounding split open the hull, resulting in a massive oil spill. Some 11 million gallons of crude oil spewed from the vessel, the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

A U.S. District Court had most recently set the punitive payment at $4.5 billion but the appellate court has trimmed that to $2.5 billion.

“We conclude that the ratio of punitive damages to actual economic harm resulting from the spill, reflected in the district court’s award of $4.5 billion, exceeds by a material factor a ratio that would be appropriate under … the current controlling Supreme Court analysis,” the San Francisco-based appeals court says.
(snip/...)

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=3910

[_testify_]

2. At what point do you think they will actually pay up?

This has been tied up in court for almost 20 years. I'm sure they can spend half of that 2.5b on lawyers to tie it up for another 20 years.


On a related note, I was listening to a syndicated talk show host (Phil Schnit)talk about drilling in the Gulf in light of Cuba allowing a Chinese oilco to drill in Cuban waters. He said this was a good reason to allow drilling in the Gulf, because who would YOU want operating the rigs, some Chinese company or a responsible US company like Exxon?

Oh, how stupid some people are...

[Paulie]

10. It's cheaper money now, been so long

Inflation has eaten quite a bit of that 2.5 Billion already!

[54anickel]

9. Merry Christmas indeed! I just read about this today, and did a search

before I posted the article. That was a pretty nice Christmas present for Exxon, the holiday Friday release was a bonus for them. I was surprised to find the court didn't have Friday day off.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/16002.html

SAN FRANCISCO: A federal appeals court in the U.S. has further cut down the compensation that Exxon Mobile will be required to pay for the 1989 oil spill in Alaska. San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling Friday, reduced the fine from an earlier $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion, saying the company's actions were not intentional and did not warrant the maximum financial penalty imposed by a lower court.

This is the third time that the damages have been brought down in one of the longest litigations. The company was first ordered to pay damages worth $5 billion.

snip>

Exxon Mobil issued a statement saying it is studying the ruling. It said it believes the fine is too high as the plaintiffs were compensated for damages and most were paid within one year of the spill.

more...

[ck4829]

3. Why is it that you can sue individual people into bankruptcy

But, there are limits to how much a person or a group of people can get when they sue a huge corporation?

[YankeyMCC]

4. UnBelievable!

Just the other day I posted a story about a decision against OSG for a spill - well in that case it was deliberate - near Boston and someone mentioned that Exxon still had yet to pay up for this.

And now it's gotten halved.

WTF!

[happyslug]

5. Here is the decision if you want ot read it.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0333BD942E7EA5AA8825724C0059D92E/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement

[cyberpj]

6. And what were there profits during the past few years? nt

[jamesinca]

7. why cut it in half, just eliminate it!!

It is not like they are going to pay it anyway,it was 20 years ago. Might as well do away with it and quite tying up court resources. I have not figured out the words to express my dislike of Exxon yet,because of this, but I am working on it.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

8. Looks like the courts are stacked...again

I saw this storie here too


Damages Are Halved in Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
$5 Billion Award Ruled Excessive

By David Kravets
Associated Press
Saturday, December 23, 2006; Page D01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200625.html

[Solon]

11. OK, what the fuck is unconstitutional about the AMOUNT of money here?

this isn't a bond issue against an individual, newsflash you freakin' courts, COMPANIES HAVE NO RIGHTS!

[chknltl]

12. What do you do with a drunkin sailor.(x3)..early in the morning?

Put him in charge of an Exxon tanker!(x3)

Old joke...but then so is this... I did not know that this was STILL being tied up in courts...
absolutely amazing. One would think that it would be better for all if they just paid up instead of using that $$ to buy lawyers and Presidents.

[DemoTex]

13. "Captain" Joseph Hazelwood

Hazelwood had a 4-inch thick personnel file at Exxon chocked full of alcohol-related on-the-job incidents. I know that from a good friend who administered that file at Exxon-USA in Houston. Hazelwood was a ticking, vodka timebomb.

[lonestarnot]

14. So they've wheedled it down to $2.00 fine now? and 2 1/2 billion

reimbursement to clean the birds? I thought the 9th Circuit was a liberal court.