I know for a fact that BP is throwing money at claimants related to the oil spill. I understand they are paying darn near every claim in a big way and challenging the validity of very few. No doubt they are asking claimants to agree not to pursue more claims on the loss. That seems very reasonable to me and I think even Trollfessor will agree that is not uncommon in settlements and in fact is an incentive for the defendant to settle.

Now today Jindal and Caldwell are calling for some sort of action to prevent BP from making settlements that will prevent the plaintiff from making future claims.

Why would Jindal do that? Well he hired a big ole democrat trial lawyer from Texas to represent the state. No doubt a strategy of such a leech would be to round up in a class action suit as many plaintiffs as possible. Well BP is paying huge of amounts of claims to tens of thousands of people---the number of potential plaintiffs in a class action is quickly declining.

So we see the REPUBLICAN (RINO) Jindal’s true colors---he will grab money every where he can.

You see Obama gave the lawyer Feinberg the authority to cut such deals and to force BP into such agreements and now Jindal can smell blood and is going after it.

Jindal and state Attorney General Buddy Caldwell oppose requiring people who seek claims from BP might have to give up their rights to sue BP for damages if they accept a final, lump-sum payment for damages.

“We want to make sure people are not being required to prematurely give up those legal rights they’ve got under federal law,” Jindal said. “The extent of the damage of this oil spill is not completely known.”

Under draft protocols for the claims process, the right to sue will be waived if a larger settlement is agreed to at a later time. The short-term payments of up to six months of losses have no effect on a claimant’s right to sue.

You Jindalicans better look at what these sand berms are and what that damn seafood inspection agency is and what these plans are and decide just what kind of man this is.

After all, how will Jindal grandstand if BP makes all the victims whole?? Is it a Bobby/Timmy strategy to slow the pace of settlements so that victims remain? Why would BP settle now if the settlement allows the claimant to continue to make claims??? No doubt if Caldwell and Jindal are successful BP will stop making settlements.

The whole oil industry is looking at this and it does not bode well for the reputation of Louisiana government in that industry.

Jindal’s treatment of BP is the scariest thing he has done. I can’t imagine any other republican bringing the government down so hard on a company.

BP faces statutory fines of close to $21 billion under the clean water act. They face potentially tens of thousands of lawsuits---certainly there are tens of thousands of claimants. All of those things are on the books and to be expected by anyone doing business here.

But in addition to the law, simply using the threat of the power of government, Obama has forced them to put $20 billion in a claim fund. Jindal has forced them to fund the idiotic sand berms at $350 million. Jindal wants another $500 million for another political boondoggle. Now Jindal wants to force them to settle claims without being relieved of the liability of future cost related to the same claim.

Jindal and Obama are changing the rules as they go. It is ambition gone wild.

It is dangerous. It is government way overstepping it’s constitutional authority. It is sending a very bad message about doing business in Louisiana.

There was a time it would have been called “Un-American”.

I. B. Freeman - 03 September 2010 08:20 AM

Jindal’s treatment of BP is the scariest thing he has done. I can’t imagine any other republican bringing the government down so hard on a company.

BP faces statutory fines of close to $21 billion under the clean water act. They face potentially tens of thousands of lawsuits---certainly there are tens of thousands of claimants. All of those things are on the books and to be expected by anyone doing business here.

But in addition to the law, simply using the threat of the power of government, Obama has forced them to put $20 billion in a claim fund. Jindal has forced them to fund the idiotic sand berms at $350 million. Jindal wants another $500 million for another political boondoggle. Now Jindal wants to force them to settle claims without being relieved of the liability of future cost related to the same claim.

Jindal and Obama are changing the rules as they go. It is ambition gone wild.

It is dangerous. It is government way overstepping it’s constitutional authority. It is sending a very bad message about doing business in Louisiana.

There was a time it would have been called “Un-American”.

obama did far worse.

You are so far out in left field (or right field, as the case may be) that you’re no longer in the ballpark.

Carry on though, you seem to be having a good time.

Trollfessor - 03 September 2010 08:29 AM

You are so far out in left field (or right field, as the case may be) that you’re no longer in the ballpark.

Carry on though, you seem to be having a good time.

Explain yourself there Troll.

Are you now saying that BP and private claimants should be prevented from entering into settlements that relieve BP of damages relating to the claim???

Parties may enter into settlements and agreements as they deem appropriate.

You seem to be offended by a settlement that does not relieve all future liability; however, such settlements are common, for example think of a personal injury case settlement where the plaintiff gets a lump sum and also all future medical benefits.

Trollfessor - 03 September 2010 09:40 AM

Parties may enter into settlements and agreements as they deem appropriate.

You seem to be offended by a settlement that does not relieve all future liability; however, such settlements are common, for example think of a personal injury case settlement where the plaintiff gets a lump sum and also all future medical benefits.

I am offended that the GOVERNOR wants to prevent parties from entering into settlements as they deem appropriate.

He is saying that he wants BP prevented from entering into settlements that end the claim.

I cannot believe you stand by him on that.

I. B. Freeman - 03 September 2010 09:49 AM

Trollfessor - 03 September 2010 09:40 AM

Parties may enter into settlements and agreements as they deem appropriate.

You seem to be offended by a settlement that does not relieve all future liability; however, such settlements are common, for example think of a personal injury case settlement where the plaintiff gets a lump sum and also all future medical benefits.

I am offended that the GOVERNOR wants to prevent parties from entering into settlements as they deem appropriate.

He is saying that he wants BP prevented from entering into settlements that end the claim.

I cannot believe you stand by him on that.

Troll??? Are you standing by this? Is this idea that BP can’t settle claims that will prevent the claimant from collecting again---even though no one is forcing the claimant to sign off on any deal--not an abomination of the legal rights a defendant has?

These type of settlements are entered into on a regular basis, nothing unusual here.

Trollfessor - 03 September 2010 12:38 PM

These type of settlements are entered into on a regular basis, nothing unusual here.

Give me an example of one.

Now think about what is happening here.

I have a claim with you for $x dollars. You say OK I.B. I will pay you but no more. Now that deal is private between you and me. I can say Troll let’s go to court or I can take it.

What Jindal is saying is Troll you cannot make a settlement that closes the door on a claim. Even worse in this case he is saying “Feinberg you can not pay out BP’s money and end a claim. Feinberg can say, “ok Governor I am going to pay out this $20 billion and all the claimants can again pursue claims against BP.” BP doesn’t have a say.

What is right about that under our system of law???

One example of the government ever doing this to a citizen, please.

Your analogy fails as BP is not saying “OK I.B. I will pay you but no more.” BP is saying that they will pay all claims, including those that have yet to develop and those thay may not be calculated at this time.  BP is agreeing to pay future claims, and all that is happening is that language is being included in the settlements.

12.4 What is a Physical Injury?

A physical injury is an injury to the body proximately caused by the Spill or the explosion and fire associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident, or by the cleanup of the Spill. An injury that relates to emotional or mental health is not a physical injury and is not an eligible claim.

12.5 Who is considered a licensed medical professional?

A licensed medical professional is a medical provider who is licensed by the state and authorized by the state to prescribe medications.

12.6 What kinds of documents do I need to submit to make a claim for Physical Injury or Death?

Refer to Exhibit A to the Claim Form for a list of the documents that you must submit with each claim for Physical Injury or Death.

12.7 What if my physical injury is ongoing?

If your physical injury is ongoing, you may apply for an Emergency Advance Payment for medical expenses or loss of income you have incurred. Once the full effects of your physical injury are known and/or resolved, you can choose to apply for and receive Final Payment for your claim.  http://gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/faq#Q7

Six months of claims will be paid as part of the initial payment (claimant picks the six months) No rights will be waived

E Emergency claims area availabe through Thanksgiving or for 90 days after August 23..then will move to Final claims which will come with full release to BP.

· Individual claims will be responded to within 24 hours

· Business claims will be responded to within 7 business days

· After the six month payment, claimant must submit a final claim to the fund for the time frame ending April 23, 2013.  If settlement approved waiver must be signed

· Claims will be evaluated based on

o Proximity to the Gulf

o Industry dependence on the claim

o And dependence on the natural resource (gulf waters)

Thats My Name Too - 03 September 2010 02:31 PM

Six months of claims will be paid as part of the initial payment (claimant picks the six months) No rights will be waived

E Emergency claims area availabe through Thanksgiving or for 90 days after August 23..then will move to Final claims which will come with full release to BP.

· Individual claims will be responded to within 24 hours

· Business claims will be responded to within 7 business days

· After the six month payment, claimant must submit a final claim to the fund for the time frame ending April 23, 2013.  If settlement approved waiver must be signed

· Claims will be evaluated based on

o Proximity to the Gulf

o Industry dependence on the claim

o And dependence on the natural resource (gulf waters)

E. is what Jindal and Caldwell are trying to change and evidently Fienberg can change it without BP’s consent.

Trollfessor - 03 September 2010 02:21 PM

Your analogy fails as BP is not saying “OK I.B. I will pay you but no more.” BP is saying that they will pay all claims, including those that have yet to develop and those thay may not be calculated at this time.  BP is agreeing to pay future claims, and all that is happening is that language is being included in the settlements.

You simply are not reading what is said. Jindal and Caldwell are saying BP should not be able to settle existing claims on existing damages with impunity from future claims on the same incident.

This is not BP or even the claimants or their attorneys. This is the government. Why would they do that and why do you support it?

No example yet I see.

I.B.-- do you know why an agreement not to make any further claims against a defendant in return for payment, is enforceable in the first place?

In case you do not, it’s because state law makes such an agreement enforceable. Thus, Jindal and the legislature are responsible for regulating such relationships in the first place. The instance you’re complaining of, seems to be Jindal trying to either change the law, or influence private parties to enter a particular agreement.

I don’t know the specific merits of what Jindal is supposedly doing. It sounds like you’re overreacting though. Is the sky really falling?