In spite of the recovery that followed, a deadline is fast approaching that many of those affected by Hurricane Ike should be aware of. In Texas, the law provides for a two-year statute of limitations for bad faith insurance claims. For victims of Hurricane Ike, the new battle is not with the rain, wind and water, but with the insurance industry. As sometimes happens, insurance companies occasionally delay their claims investigations, hoping to withhold payment for as long as possible. In some instances this takes years. In Texas, if payments have not been made during the two-year period, there is no guarantee after that point that payment will be made.
If you or someone you know is involved in an insurance claim and the insurance company is dragging its feet, you need to see a lawyer to make a bad faith claim. This needs to be done before September to ensure that your claim has a fair chance at being extended past the two-year window. Should you not make this claim, your insurance company is under no legal obligation to work with you. Should you make a bad faith claim, however, you are allowed to present evidence that the insurance company is acting in bad faith in failing to process your insurance claim in a timely manner.
If you believe you are in such a situation, be sure to visit an attorney familiar with insurance law. The lawyer will review your situation and advise you of the best course of action.
]]>While the numbers are not certain, it is estimated that 20 to 30 million gallons have already leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. The wildlife, shipping industry, beaches and ecosystem of the southwest coasts of the United States are at risk of severe and permanent damage. To put that amount of oil into context, approximately 11 million gallons of oil were spilled during the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill.
BP's first attempt to stop the leak was to cap the well with a four-story dome. Engineers attempted to install the dome 5,000 feet below the surface, but were unable to achieve their goal due to the depths of the water. Next, BP tried a "junk shot," which involved shooting garbage and debris into the well to clog it and stop the leak. The junk shot, along with a second cap, were also unsuccessful.
The most recent attempt to cap the leaking well is called a top kill maneuver. This involves pumping a very thick drilling fluid into the well to plug it. Unfortunately, this method has not worked, either. The next step will be to attempt to cap the well once again, now that a riser pipe has been cut and severed from the well.
]]>When executives from the three companies most deeply mired in the problem of the Gulf testified before Congress in May, they pointed fingers at each other. Officials from BP, Halliburton and Transocean all tried to lay blame for the worst oil spill in U.S. history on one another.
BP leased the Deepwater Horizon oil rig from Transocean Ltd. for exploratory drilling about 50 miles southeast of Venice, LA. BP executives say Transocean's rig and its blowout protector failed, causing an explosion that killed 11 workers and unleashed an unstoppable gusher of oil one mile deep underwater.
Transocean points back to BP, saying the blame belongs with the operator of the rig.
Transocean executives also point at Halliburton, Inc., a BP subcontractor, which is alleged to have had the responsibility of encasing the well pipe in cement before plugging it.
Unsurprisingly, Halliburton executives say they were acting on BP's orders and therefore the blame belongs with the company formerly known as British Petroleum.
It's expected that all three companies will hedge against taking full responsibility -- and legal liability -- for the deaths, injuries and environmental damage caused by the unprecedented offshore oil rig disaster.
The reality of who will bear liability for the widespread damage to people, the environment, wildlife and Gulf industries will be determined in courts. In court the question of gross negligence as the cause of the April 20 explosion will be determined.
One thing we know for sure at this point is that there were no hurricanes, tsunamis, typhoons or earthquakes anywhere near the Deepwater Horizon that day. As much as apologists for BP and the other involved companies might wish for it to be so, the "act of God" defense is not viable.
]]>Today, New Orleans federal judge Martin Feldman blocked enforcement of a sixth month moratorium placed on deep water drilling, meaning drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. Following the Deepwater Horizon explosion that resulted to one of the worst oil spill in US history, President Barack Obama banned any deepwater drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico for a period of six (6) months. The White House has said it will appeal the decision.
The objective was to give government time to review the rules and lapses of such wells. Mr. Obama said during a nationwide address that he wants to hear a national panel's recommendations to improve worker safety and environmental protections before the moratorium is lifted. He also wants to understand the circumstances that led to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
However, securities firm Raymond James & Associates issued a bold forecast that the moratorium could last into 2011. If this scenario happens, around 50,000 rig and associated jobs will be in great peril. Entire communities that depend on deepwater drilling could likewise be devastated. Aside from that, many of the oil rigs affected by the moratorium could go elsewhere to drill oil endangering 800 to 1,400 jobs per rig. There were 33 permitted deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico region prior to the moratorium.
Governor Jindal says that Mr. Obama doesn't understand the "economic pain the forced stoppage is causing to Louisiana workers." Louisiana is one of the gulf states seriously affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Now, it is facing imminent unemployment of an estimated 330,000 people in said state alone if the moratorium continues.
In addition, oil industry executives during the recent World National Oil Companies Congress in London showed harsh disapproval of the Obama imposed six-month moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico because according to them, "the world did not have enough other sources of oil to eliminate using deepsea rigs."
It must be noted that 33 percent of the US nation's domestic oil comes from the Gulf of Mexico. Eighty percent of the Gulf's oil and 45 percent of its natural gas comes from operations in more than 1,000 feet of water or deepwater.
Instead of the mandatory ban of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, leading industry experts proposed the following alternatives that federal regulators could undertake, including:
· Re-certifying all BOP equipment used in floating drilling operations and ensure their suitability for the rig and well design.
· Ensuring rig personnel are trained to industry- and government-accepted standards for well-control procedures;
· Reviewing operator well plans, with particular emphasis on casing and cementing designs to ensure sufficient pressure barriers and that designs are fit for their purpose.
The move to put in place a moratorium underscores the frustration across the Gulf Coast and the nation with the conduct of BP and of the entire oil exploration and production industry. BP and its industry colleagues have been operating without a safety net, with little to no ability to address any type of deep water well disaster. They have put the Gulf Coast in the untenable position President Obama was trying to address with the moratorium: if drilling stops until the drilling industry can demonstrate it can operate in deep water safely, the Gulf economy would take an enormous hit in already challenging economic times; but if drilling continues, we remain at risk for another deep water disaster. The costs of the deep water moratorium are high - likely too high for our community right now. But make no mistake, the fault and responsibility for this dilemma doesn't rest with the White House, but with BP and the entire oil exploration and production industry for creating these enormous risks and devastating consequences.
]]>The Keller Citizen reports that though investigators are still working to determine the exact cause of the crash of the Bell 222U helicopter, speculation swirls around the aircraft's so-called "Jesus nut." That's the name given to the large main rotor attaching nut - the nut that holds the rotor to the helicopter's mast. It's said that if it comes loose, those inside the helicopter face imminent injury or death in a crash.
In this crash, the main rotor was found intact and separate from the burned remains of the helicopter body, suggesting the rotor detached during the short flight. Mechanics had been working on the rotor prior to the flight.
The tragic crash illustrates a fundamental problem with helicopters: everything has to go right for one to fly. There are many moving parts. With an airplane, many variables have to go wrong before a crash.
Pilots of helicopters must possess a certain level of vigilance and skill in order to fly them safely, whereas airplanes, and especially those with computer-controlled navigation systems, essentially fly themselves (think of the flight last year when commercial airline pilots inadvertently yet safely overflew the Minneapolis, Minn. airport by 150 miles).
Helicopters are also more flexible and mobile. A helicopter can land in almost any open space big enough to accommodate its blades and are typically flown at lower altitudes. Helicopter pilots often fly near obstacles that may not be immediately visible to the naked eye, and engage in a wide variety of missions that include search and rescue and emergency medical transport.
Another Texas helicopter crash underscores the problem: a Seguin man suffered serious burns when the helicopter in which he flew as a passenger crashed into electrical power lines.
The Seguin Gazette-Enterprise reported that the helicopter hit the line when the pilot and passenger flew at low altitude en route to a ranch for a wild hog hunt.
The chopper crashed after it hit two electrical lines. The pilot emerged unhurt after he managed to land the Robinson R-22 helicopter safely, but the passenger suffered burns to an arm and leg.
We urge anyone considering a helicopter ride for pleasure or business to check out the company and its safety record before taking off. If you have been injured in an aviation accident, contact a personal injury attorney.
]]>Two employees of freight-forwarding company EGL brought the suit pursuant to the False Claims Act. David Vavra and Jerry Hyatt have made similar claims that EGL overcharged the government on military contracts in the past, leading to settlements in excess of $5 million.
Meanwhile, KBR has been the subject of complaints since at least 2005 for receiving no-bid contracts from the U.S. military at what Congress considers inflated costs. Congress has demanded that competitive bidding be used to award military contracts.
Yet the very day that the attorney general announced the government's joining of the whistle-blower suit, the U.S. Army awarded a $568 million no-bid contract to KBR at the recommendation of U.S. commanders serving in Iraq. With the Iraq war effort shutting down, Gen. Ray Odierno opposed "changing horses in midstream," citing his need to move 3 million pieces of equipment, close 100 bases and relocate 80,000 people.
In April the US government sued KBR in an unrelated matter, charging that the company improperly billed the United States for private security services not authorized in its contract.
In 2009, nine separate class-action lawsuits were filed against KBR on behalf of former service members alleging exposure to toxic materials from open burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. The open-air burning allegedly resulted in serious illnesses including lymphoma and leukemia. KBR denies responsibility for the burn-pit operation and resulting illnesses.
]]>The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which decreased the amount of the award to $500 million. The court's ruling imposes a 1-to-1 ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages. The Exxon Shipping suit resulted in compensatory damages of just one-fifth the punitive damages awarded. The ruling was based on common law, but parts of the opinion suggest that the same result could have been reached based on constitutional grounds.
The proposed legislation would do away with the mandated ratio and allow litigants to obtain punitive damages without regard to the actual amount of compensatory damages. Legal scholars are unsure if Congress has the authority to put such a measure into action. Congress has authority to overturn the court's ruling but may not be able to do so in this case for constitutional reasons.
Additionally, in light of the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it is unclear if Congress could give the law retroactive effect, punishing those responsible. Often when a statute is enacted and results in monetary damages, the courts are unlikely to allow the law to be enforced against acts that occurred prior to the enactment.
Four senators have introduced the bill, but the Senate has not yet cast its vote. If it passes in the Senate, the bill must still pass through the House of Representatives as well as withstand legal attacks from the bill's opponents before having any effect on those involved in the Deepwater Horizon rig explosions and the ensuing Gulf oil spill.
]]>Lawyers are advocates for their clients. Black's Law Dictionary defines "advocate" as "a person who assists, defends, pleads, or prosecutes for another." But the term means much more. An injured client should be confident that the lawyer will assist and plead in the name of the client's best interests, which means using the lawyer's legal skill and knowledge to work toward the best possible result under the circumstances.
A seriously injured client has several concerns that must be addressed, including:
A seriously injured client is in an extremely vulnerable position. An advocate will represent the client and ensure the case proceeds without unnecessary delay, by sending letters, e-mails and proper documentation to the opposing side on a regular and consistent basis. The advocate stays on top of the case so the opposing side understands that there will be no settlement that does not fully compensate the injured client. And if there is no fair settlement, the advocate will not hesitate to try the case in front of a judge and jury.
If you have been injured in an accident, seek out an advocate who will support you from beginning to end. Contact an experienced personal injury attorney.
]]>