The last few weeks we have spent our extra time working on a new website for the Hightower Commercial Law Center, LLC.  Please check out our new site.

Hightower Commercial Law Center, LLC

Shortly, we will begin posting new information on the blog / news portal of the new website.  Please provide your comments

A federal court panel has decided to “centralize” 77 federal civil cases,  which are filed in the federal courts from Florida to Texas.  All the civil cases will be transferred to the federal court in New Orleans, Louisiana, under the federal statutory law providing rules for Multidistrict Litigation.  Attached is a copy of order of transfer.

MDL_Transfer_Order

A British news service is reporting that a spike in the number of applications for Louisiana fishing licenses, after BP starting paying claims to commercial fishermen, has been suggested as evidence of fraudulent claims for damages related to the Gulf oil spill. 

[Unfortunately, with minimal checks and balances and the pressure on BP to pay claims as quickly as possible, there is the potential for abuse.]

It is reported that there is a major scuffle over the venue for the BP claims.  A “venue”, which in this context means the appropriate location of the court for trial, can be resolved with multiple arguments.  For example, proper venue can be:

the location of the incident which caused the damages [Louisiana]; 
the location of the defendant(s) [many of the defendants have offices in Houston, Texas]; or
the location of the damages [all of the Gulf States]. 

Each of the parties have an incentive for promoting their “proper” venue.  The federal courts are seeking to consolidate this litigation, which could be hundreds of cases (if not more), to insure that the decisions are fairly consistent.  However, the defendant(s) [BP and others] probably believe they will get a “balanced” review, if they can argue the decisions in the area where they “might” have the most influence.  [Houston.]  The plaintiffs are looking for the state where they can get the most damages, based on the statutory and jurisprudential law.  Finally, the lawyers are probably working to get the case in the state where they are licensed, so they have a potential for more clients.

[It will be interested to see the result.]

It is reported that at least one personal injury claim arising from exposure to the oil and dispersant has been filed on the Gulf Coast.  [This would be in addition to the claims of injured workers on the rig, at the time of explosion.]  We suspect that the PI claims were the concern of BP, when they requested the fisherman sign waivers before hiring them for clean-up.   

[If the personal injury claims are successful, it is likely they could dwarf the business interruption claims of local industry which are currently in the news.  However, we question if the PI claimants have enough scientific evidence to support their allegations.  Only time will tell.]

On June 16, 2010, the White House disclosed that Ken Feinberg would take charge of a $20 billion escrow fund to compensate people and businesses harmed by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  The President stated, “I’m confident he will assure that claims are administered as quickly, as fairly and as transparently as possible.”  This turn of events gave everyone the impression that the White House selected Mr. Feinberg for this very important role.  Now, there are reports that Feinberg was selected by the oil company, BP.

Further, a South Florida plaintiff attorney, Ervin Gonzalez, of the law firm of Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables,  complains that Feinberg has not disclosed how much the oil giant is paying him.  Additionally, Gonzalez, who is part of an ad-hoc committee of about a dozen plaintiffs attorneys representing oil spill victims, demands that the “Compensation Czar” stop discouraging victims from seeking legal representation.

[Feinberg has developed his skills as a mediator, who is a type of "facilitator" that seeks to resolve matters without the need for litigation.  Therefore, it would not be surprising, if Mr. Feinberg wishes to discourage litigation and entice the potential claimants to resolve their matters without the use of the Courts.  However,  he may wish to consider an open disclosure of his relationship with BP.]

It has been reported that a Pennsylvania District Court Judge has allowed the release of an American Pit Bull Terrier, which was accused of biting pop singer, Vanessa Carlton.  The dog, named “Bella,” which had its own internet petition, allegedly bit the singer, who was jogging near the home of the owner of the dog. 

Curiously, the owner was allowed to call a veterinarian, as an expert witness, who testified that a dental mold of the dog’s teeth did not match the injuries complained of by Ms. Carlton.  This discrepancy suggested that Bella was not the dog which caused the injuries, and probably was instrumental in saving the dog and allowing it to be returned to its owner.

[This shows that a dedicated owner, working closely with legal counsel and veterinarians, may still be able to protect the interest of an accused animal.]

There are reports of homeowners insurance companies refusing to issue policies or increasing the premiums for families with certain breeds of dog.  What has been reported is that some insurers will not cover families with dogs which appear to be American Pit Bull Terriers, Akitas, Chows, and Rottweilers.  No special consideration is given to the history and/or disposition of the animals.

This has led the American Kennel Club (“AKC”) to issue a statement on the issue.  You may also be interested in the story provided by a Missouri family on their difficulty in acquiring homeowners insurance.

[As an attorneys and animal owners, we can appreciate the position of both sides.  Certainly, the insurers wish to eliminate as much exposure as possible, but it is possible to take it too far.  It appears the real culprits are the ones who fail to properly care for and control their animals, which then become a hazard to others.  If not now, then in the future, we anticipate more homeowners insurers will have a separate premium to cover the acts of the household pets.]

On Thursday (July 8), the Federal Government presented oral arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, requesting the Court to stay the enforcement of the lower court decision, which enjoined (“stopped”) the drilling moratorium in the Gulf.  The three judge panel rejected the arguments and denied the motion to stay.  The result is that, until the Government’s appeal is heard in late August or early September, the drilling companies have the option to initiate drilling operations, which were previously approved. 

[There are some who suggest the oil and gas companies will wait until the matter is completely resolved, before initiating new operations. We speculate that is wishful thinking by the administration, as it would ultimately result in the moratorium they are seeking.  Of course, the final word would not be until the Supreme Court addresses the issue, and the Interior Department has also suggested they may try to make an "end-run" around the court by issuing a "new detailed" moratorium.  It is our opinion that in all cases the legal arguments of the Federal Government, favoring the moratorium, will fail.]

Link to Report on Decision.

For those waiting to renew flood insurance coverage or obtain coverage to close on a new acquisition, some welcome news finally arrived.  On Friday, July 2, 2010, the President signed into law H.R. 5569, the “National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2010,” which retroactively reauthorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to enter into new contracts for flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30, 2010; and reduces FEMA’s authority to borrow under the Program by $50 million to up to $20.725 billion.

The passage comes as reports of a tropical wave which could result in a tropical depression, which could enter the Gulf of Mexico in the near future.

[Presumably, the retroactivity effect of HR 5569 will allow any renewals to immediately start at the end of the preceeding term and prevent the necessity of waiting the 30 days.  If you are seeking to purchase a new policy, it is recommended to move to obtain coverage prior to any new named storm enters the Gulf.]