BP claim??????

Roger Long · Jul 15, 2010

There was a FL charter boat captain on the news yesterday saying that his claim for having no customers since shortly after the spill started was denied because the BP representative told him that they wouldn't pay just because his customer base thought there was oil in his fishing grounds. The captain said, "But I'm out of business."

The BP claims adjuster then pointed out that fishing resumed just six years after another major spill and he could be fishing again that soon so he couldn't claim that he was out of business.

BP has an army of contractors handling these claims. I'm sure there is a wide spectrum of how honest they are in dealing with claimants, the latter one in this case being the more honest, unfortunately.

They paid a lot of small of claims promptly when it was a hot news item. As media attention drifts on to other things, they'll start closing the valves on the money BOP stack.

Any vet who has dealt with the VA on disability claims knows how this is going to go.

Ross · Jul 15, 2010

When the economy went bad two years ago people got scared and quit spending money where they could. As a result my home repair business plummeted but I can't blame the banks or the stock market or the government. People are what they are and generally they are cautious as cats when they survival is in doubt.
I expect that there will be many claims for lost income with the BP mess some of them will be legitimate and some will be opportunistic. When ever there is a city bus accident a hundred people come forward claiming to have been injured when there were only 12 passengers on the bus. The claims adjusters have heard and seen it all so they tend to be skeptical.

Ken13559 · Jul 15, 2010

Sharks! I just put in my claim for cleaning and paint job for waterline area due to oil spill from ship collision. Much like what happened in Gulf but alot lot smaller in scale. Do I suppose all insurance company are alike? :cry:

OldCat · Jul 15, 2010

You may be surprised

Nice N Easy said:
Never thought I would ever do this, but today I filed a claim for bottom paint with BP. I really don't expect to ever get much, if anything. But the way they are throwing money away, in totally idiotic ways why not. Trinidad SR is now at 250+ per gallon times three. So far the process was very easy and simple. Notice I said so far. Called their claims number this morning, got some guy who was very nice, sounded like the typical person you get in India for tech support, but said he was in Mass. Took all my info. and told me an adjuster would contact me within three or four days. This evening an adjuster called, again very nice, told me what they needed, and where to send everything. From the way he talked I will get a check by return mail. But I truly do not expect that. Too bad they don't have in icon on here for " song and dance".

You may be surprised - I once capsized a small sailboat in Los Angeles harbor after a tanker had spilled oil. Tar all over the sails. They bought me a brand new set. They put the oil in the water - I think that they will pay for this.

OC

Terry in Naples · Jul 15, 2010

Last night on TV there were some fishermen (crew actually) and they claim they work on the fishing boats. they get paid cash and have no record of earnings. they want to get paid from BP. They are mad their claims are not getting paid. I think in this case this is the chance they took when they decided to work, collect and do not pay taxes on the money. Am I alone in this?

Ross · Jul 15, 2010

Terry in Naples said:
Last night on TV there were some fishermen (crew actually) and they claim they work on the fishing boats. they get paid cash and have no record of earnings. they want to get paid from BP. They are mad their claims are not getting paid. I think in this case this is the chance they took when they decided to work, collect and do not pay taxes on the money. Am I alone in this?

Everybody will want proof of loss before they hand out money.
As a business man I could save substantial amounts of money by paying labor cash. No payroll taxes, no workers comp, no unemployment insurance fees. No increase in my liability insurance.
The down side for the workers is no income of record when it comes time to draw social security and to apply for medicare..
This could bring a new crew of bureaucrats down on these fishing boat captains for failing to report payroll and remit payroll taxes and on the crew for tax avoidance. There is a real likelyhood that the owners are under reporting their income. If they submit their "income from self employment" reports from their income tax returns they can expect to be compensated for that much lost income and no more.

John · Jul 15, 2010

The other issue is the Corexit oil dispersant (manufactured by a BP subsidiary I read). From what I've read, this is some truly nasty stuff, although nobody but the manufacturer knows what's in it (trade secret). Here (http://www.truth-out.org/bad-air-barataria61296) is one report on the affects of the stuff on people just from breathing the fumes. Imagine what it's doing under the water - all 1.4 million gallons that have been used so far.

As far as some people scamming the system - sure, there will always be some, but you can be sure that BP will never pay for all the damages, including the long term ones. They've scammed the system more than everybody else put together.

Ross · Jul 15, 2010

First of all there is no such thing as a completely secret formula. With modern chemical analysis equipment an analytical chemist can identify the component parts of any complex product.
Secondly nobody that I have ever encountered believes everything that a high ranking member of a corporation or a government has to say.

thereisabelle · Jul 15, 2010

N&E.. i thought you were in dry, on the hard..what's the claim? jimbob

zeehag · Jul 15, 2010

thereisabelle said:
N&E.. i thought you were in dry, on the hard..what's the claim? jimbob

we sailed thru submerged oil before psj and our spoils bank adventure--prolly wasnt after psj--we didnt go that far off shore--but the time was mebbe we were in right place art right time--we saw no oil. we smelled no oil. but we got oil. oh well--our timing was impeccable......

Ross · Jul 15, 2010

aincha glad you didn't go swimmin.

zeehag · Jul 15, 2010

Ross said:
aincha glad you didn't go swimmin.

water was still too cold. lol. at least we were able to get home.

John · Jul 16, 2010

Check out BP's latest cover up attempt: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html

zeehag · Jul 16, 2010

John said:
Check out BP's latest cover up attempt: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html

wouldnt it be lovely if, by some stranger than fiction accident forced the hand into doing research for the improvement of the gulf and actually accomplished it.......

Ross · Jul 16, 2010

Hiring experts is pretty standard in litigation. Just as hiring a lawyer the experts would be working for the defence. The government will hire as many experts for its prosecution as it feels it needs. Confidentially always rules in a case.

Don S/V ILLusion · Jul 16, 2010

The contracts awarded by the government for NRDA (natural resource damage assessment) is equally restrictive as that described being done by BP. This is standard practice and, after you consider the issues, is done so for good reason - actually avoids conflict of interest problems.

John · Jul 16, 2010

I find strange the readiness to condemn individuals as well as government and so reluctant to condemn BP. If you read that article, you will note what several people said - that the purpose of their attempts is not to hire scientific experts, but to shut them up. By getting them under contract, they ensure that they won't lend their expertise to any lawsuit against BP.

BP has a long record as a corporate serial criminal and serial killer, going back to that explosion at their refinery in Texas for which they were fined for a series of safety violations. (The explosion killed 15 workers.) They are now using Corexit, which is clearly highly toxic. In collaboration with the government agencies, they are ensuring that few reports of the actual affects of Corexit get out. Despite their best efforts, though, a few reports are getting out, and they should cause everybody to worry. I heard a woman from Alaska talk about the Exxon Valdez spill. She said that the beaches there that recovered the fastest were those that weren't "treated", that is, that didn't get any attention. But now the entire Gulf is being treated.

What's the purpose of spreading nearly 1.5 million gallons of dispersant? It doesn't make the oil go away; it simply disperses it. So the purpose is to limit BP's liability. Out of sight, out of mind. You know what they say: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me a second time...."

Ray Bowles · Jul 16, 2010

Getting paid "under the table" for your work/services can really have adverse effects later in life. It might be great to beat the tax guys or realize the extra money in-lieu of medical insurance but there is a price anyway. It's called no benefits! ie. No unemployment, no SS. no benefits period!
Don't cry about it later. You were a big kid when you did it. Be a big guy now and shut-up.
I have seen so many people cheating on SSI, disability or even in this case that I find that I've really hardened up about these abuses. It really makes it hard for those that truly earned and need these programs. Poor choises have conquences.
Ray

Don S/V ILLusion · Jul 16, 2010

and this relates to sailing how?

Regarding John's comment "They are now using Corexit, which is clearly highly toxic."

An excerpt from EPA's web site:
"Following BP’s response – and to ensure that decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are grounded in the best available science – EPA began its own scientific testing of eight dispersant products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule (NCP-PS). Those dispersant products are: Dispersit SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, ZI-400, SAF-RON GOLD, Sea Brat #4, Corexit 9500 A and JD-2000. On June 30, EPA released peer reviewed results from the first round of its own independent toxicity testing on eight oil dispersants.
EPA's results indicated that none of the eight dispersants tested, including the product in use in the Gulf, displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity. While the dispersant products alone – not mixed with oil - have roughly the same impact on aquatic life, JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 were generally less toxic to small fish and JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were least toxic to mysid shrimp"

The decision is one of allowing dispersed oil to enter the water column or have the oil come ashore in marshes, mangroves, tidal estuaries and other areas which are the most sensitive ecosystems. Lacking enough equipment anywhere in the world to ensure mechanical means of cleanup is effective at precluding inundating these areas, it becomes a difficult but easy choice to criticize.

Having just added to the non-sailing content of this thread, hopefully someone will place it in it's proper place...