Exxon Valdez - The saga continues...

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Snowbear

NOK
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
1
From the Anchorage Daily News...

Judge orders Exxon Mobil to pay nearly $7 billion in spill damages

By RACHEL D'ORO, Associated Press Writer

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (January 28, 6:15 p.m. AST) - A federal judge in Anchorage on Wednesday ordered Exxon Mobil Corp. to pay nearly $7 billion in punitive damages and interest to thousands of fishermen and others affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

"We have now closed the trial court doors for the last time in this litigation after 15 years," said David Oesting, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "We're definitely on track to the end of the entire dispute."

In Wednesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Russel Holland ordered Exxon Mobil to pay $4.5 billion in punitive damages and interest estimated at about $2.25 billion.

The money is to go to 32,000 fishermen, Alaska Natives, landowners, small businessmen and municipalities affected by the nearly 11 million gallon spill in Prince William Sound.

An Exxon Mobil official said the Irving, Texas-based company plans to appeal the 81-page ruling, the latest of several issued by Holland since Exxon appealed a $5 billion punitive award approved by a federal jury in Anchorage in 1994.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has twice vacated Holland's decision in the case, said Exxon spokesman Tom Cirigliano. Holland had been ordered by the appellate court to reconsider the damages of an earlier decision.

"This ruling flies in the face of the guidelines set by the appeals court," Cirigliano said of Wednesday's order.

Gov. Frank Murkowski noted that while the decision "moves the process on," Exxon's plans to appeal signify there's no end in sight to the legal dispute that has dragged on for a decade.

"It would be helpful if the two parties would consider discussing a settlement, so that any award that might come from the lawsuit could have application during the lifetime of the thousands of plaintiffs," Murkowski said.

In 2002, Holland reduced the Exxon punitive damages award to $4 billion after a three-judge appeals panel sent the original $5 billion verdict back, saying it was excessive.

In his latest ruling, the judge was to consider a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year involving a Utah traffic accident and damages awarded in that case.

Attorneys from both sides argued that the Supreme Court case, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, supported their damages claims. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a state court jury's award of $145 million to punish the insurance company was grossly excessive when actual damages were $1 million.

The high court held that the ratio of punitive to actual damages should not exceed single digits, or 9-to-1.

Exxon attorneys argued that injury to plaintiffs was only economic and damages should be based on a lower ratio, such as 1-to-1 or less, which would produce damages of about $25 million. Exxon has already paid $3.2 billion on cleanup, settlements and other fees and penalties, attorneys said.

But lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the key issue is conduct, and that Exxon's was among the worst. They said Exxon knew that tanker Capt. Joe Hazelwood had alcohol problems but still allowed him to take charge of the Exxon Valdez. Attorneys calculated the actual damages caused by the spill at more than $500 million, which equals roughly $5 billion when the 9-1 ratio is applied.

Holland agreed with a higher ratio.

"In the view of this court," the judge wrote, "the decision by Exxon to leave Capt. Hazelwood in command of the Exxon Valdez is the critical factor in evaluating the quality of Exxon's conduct and therefore the amount of punitive damages."

Cirigliano said that when the matter was sent back to Holland, Exxon Mobil lawyers predicted this would be the result - "serious further delays" - from having to appeal rulings from a court "that has already made numerous mistakes."

Given the convoluted history of the case, the amount of the award was astonishing, said Los Angeles attorney Curt Cutting, who has worked on numerous punitive damage cases, including filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the State Farm matter.

"I can't imagine what the District Court saw in the State Farm opinion to make it increase the amount rather than decrease," Cutting said. "The point of punitive damages is to punish and deter defendants for their conduct, not to compensate plaintiffs in the case, whether there are one or 10,000. I would expect the 9th Circuit to greatly reduce the award. The appellate court's opinion was very clear that it thought $5 billion was excessive."

The spill occurred March 24, 1989, less than three hours after the 987-foot ship left the Alyeska Pipeline terminal in Valdez.

The ship grounded at Bligh Reef, rupturing eight of its 11 cargo tanks and spewing some 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into the sound.

An estimated 250,000 seabirds and thousands of marine mammals died as a result of the spill, which contaminated more than 1,200 miles of shoreline.

Lingering effects of the spill include declines in various marine populations, such as stunted growth and indirect mortality increases in pink salmon populations.
 
Key dates in Exxon Valdez oil-spill litigation

The Associated Press

March 1989 - The Exxon Valdez runs aground on Bligh Reef, spilling nearly 11 million gallons of North Slope crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound.

March 1990 - In criminal proceedings, tanker Capt. Joseph Hazelwood is acquitted of one felony, criminal mischief, and two misdemeanor charges, operating a vessel while intoxicated and reckless endangerment. He is convicted of negligent discharge of oil, a misdemeanor.

October 1991 - Exxon pleads guilty to breaking several environmental laws and settles criminal and civil lawsuits filed by state and federal agencies for damages to natural resources. Criminal penalty: $125 million fine and restitution. Civil settlement: $900 million, to be paid over 10 years.

September 1994 - A federal jury awards $5 billion in punitive damages to 34,000 fishermen and other Alaskans who said they had been harmed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

It was then the largest punitive damage award in history, equal to a year's worth of Exxon profits at the time.

June 1997 - Exxon appeals $5 billion judgment.

October 2000 - U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear Exxon's appeal of $5 billion punitive damage award.

November 2001 - 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals finds $5 billion judgment excessive. Sends case back to U.S. District Court in Anchorage.

December 2002 - U.S. District Judge Russel Holland reduces the punitive damage judgment against Exxon Corp. from $5 billion to $4 billion. Both sides appeal.

August 2003 - 9th Circuit again sends case back to Holland after U.S. Supreme Court finds that a $145 million punitive damage award against State Farm Insurance is excessive.

January 2004 - Holland orders Exxon Mobil to pay $4.5 billion in punitive damages and about $2.25 billion in interest. Exxon says it will appeal.
 
I vividly remember when this happened. I was shocked at the way Exxon handled the situation. I work for another oil company and we had sent oil spill equipment to Valdez several years prior to the incident. Exxon basically did nothing for several days while supposedly waiting for the state or the federal governement to allow them to use a dispersant. Even if they had done that, it would not have been the best for the environment as it would cause the oil to either sink or spread. If they had deployed oil booms to contain the spill, there would have been far less damage. There were several techniques that could have been used to lessen the impact, but they chose to wait - permission was never granted and rightly so. This lack of action caused me to cut up my Exxon credit card and send it back to them. I have NEVER used any more Exxon products since that time. I do not fault them very much for the accident, but rather the way they handled to aftermath. Most of what they did was just for show, not to really clean up the spill. Mostly they waited for the usual storms to scatter the oil until it could not be seen.

Sorry for the rant, but this is a rather sore subject. Thanks.
 
publicly announcing that all costs incurred for cleanup efforts would be directly passed on to consumers...his attitude and lack of sensitivity to the severe impacts his company was directly responsible for seemed confrontive.

A group of irate folks at the company I worked for at the time put a container in the front lobby and invited employees to cut up their Exxon credit cards and send them to the gentleman.

There were a few hundred cards in it when they shipped it off...a token gesture that didn't affect their bottom line, but I haven't purchased anything from Exxon since then.
 
I wouldn't hold my breath about all this wonderful oil money coming in anytime soon. Exxon, has and will continue to appeal, and block the legal courts decisions. I would doubt if anyone who was alive when the accident occured, and has money due to them, will ever see it in thier lifetime. Exxon has all the time in the world, and is not interested in mking anything right. And to top it all off, Did you see all the Captain got was a Misdemeaner?? Nothing but a slap on the hand. Classic corporate dealings.
 
diverrick:
I wouldn't hold my breath about all this wonderful oil money coming in anytime soon. Exxon, has and will continue to appeal, and block the legal courts decisions. I would doubt if anyone who was alive when the accident occured, and has money due to them, will ever see it in thier lifetime. Exxon has all the time in the world, and is not interested in mking anything right. And to top it all off, Did you see all the Captain got was a Misdemeaner?? Nothing but a slap on the hand. Classic corporate dealings.
"The saga continues." :angry:
 
diverrick:
And to top it all off, Did you see all the Captain got was a Misdemeaner?? Nothing but a slap on the hand. Classic corporate dealings.

There was a recent story on Joe Hazelwood (oh, maybe a year or so ago) ... the man was financially destroyed by this accident ... and hasn't been able to find decent work since. Not that I feel sorry for him at all, but the misdemeanor conviction is the least of his worries.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his bosses at Exxon. Even if they eventually decided to pay the settlement, it wouldn't affect their lives in the least.

And yes, the expectation is that Exxon will keep this case tied up in litigation basically forever.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
All it takes to change it is to require Exxon to pay the money into escrow before they can appeal.
 
Remember a story in the Wall Street Journal probably 1981-2 That a some lawyer in the fed attorney generals office was dropping a case against GM. The case was about price fixing on new car loans and the person dropping the case was the grandson of the lawyer who initiated the case over 40 years before!!!!!! So whose gona win heh
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom