Exxon pleads for relief in Alaska oil spill case

Only in Bush/Cheney America would an oil company that makes Billions in profit each year cry about paying to clean up it's own mess.

...and since the Wingnuts have the Supreme court stacked with rightwing fringe lunitics, Exxon will probably get off scott free of any more payments.

Only in a Bush/Cheney America would an oil company that takes in nearly 1 billion dollars in Net Revenue a DAY!...fight almost 33,000 American citizens for their livelyhood! Many of whom have died or cannot retire because their businesses have never recovered from the nations largest environmental disaster. Not to mention how poor Exxon suffered from this spill by increasing its net profit 812% (5 billion to 40.6 billion) in a little over 18 years. Oh...they were deterred...YEAH RIGHT!

John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has scored a stunning zero out of 100 on the latest League of Conservation Voters Scorecard, which rates elected officials on their votes in the most recent Congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/mccain-scores-zero-on-env_n_87952.html

If the Supreme Court allows Exxon off the hook, then it's true that corruption has reached the highest level. At that point, forget recovering from an oil spill -- how are we going to recover from corruption?

That this corporation has been able to stall this jury verdict for 19 years is a travesty. They had their day in court...now pay up, with interest.

*****
Posted by: Lisa Bruce | February 27, 2008 4:42 PM

Lisa,

Do you always count your devils before they are hatched? Don't look now, but your partisanship is showing.

To: JohnEEE-boy and Erik Hjorten,

The case isn’t about Exxon crying about having to pay for cleaning up its own mess or compensating those whom it harmed by the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. Exxon already paid out $3.4 billion in damages for restitution and to compensate the victims. That fact is in the story. How did you miss it?

The part of the verdict they are now challenging is the award of $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded to punish a party (normally for outrageous and intentional misconduct), and not to force restitution or compensate the victims. Furthermore, the question (or one of the questions) is the propriety of awarding punitive damages against Exxon for the misconduct of one of its employees.

I’m glad I could clear that up for you.

I’m glad I could clear that up for you.

Posted by: John W. | February 27, 2008 8:38 PM

Grandpa John W,

I think the big oil companies can afford to finish paying off ALL of their debts, old man, but it sure is nice to see that we have Republicans like you going to bat for the wealthy oil companies, I don't know what they'd do without you.

This case is closed!

You lose...again.

John W.,

What are you going on about? They hatched.

The forgotten 800-pound gorilla in the room is that punitive damages are supposed to PUNISH. Can anyone, any of the justices, say with a straight face that Exxon is effectively punished by even the full amount, nothing more than a couple weeks net profit?? Oh, the pain they must feel...

To suggest that they would be punished by less is ludicrous. Shame on the Supreme Court for even suggesting this--it's one thing to be business-friendly, it's another to completely sell out the United States legal system to the world's largest corporation.

JohnEEE-boy,

Your ignorance is only eclipsed by your wanton arrogance. Contrary to your suggestion, I haven’t gone to bat for either side or advocated any particular result. I merely pointed out your ignorance concerning the case (and or lack of reading comprehension) from your statement that the case had something to do with Exxon “cry[ing] about paying to clean up it's own mess.” The case has nothing to do with it. Do you get it yet?

John W.,

What are you going on about? They hatched.

Posted by: Lisa Bruce | February 27, 2008 9:35 PM

Really? How so? Oral arguments have just been presented. The case hasn’t been decided yet. Exxon hasn’t won yet. Thus, the contingencies upon which you predicated your condemnation have yet to occur. Explain, please.

When the Court agreed to take the case back in October, the die was cast. No way the Court would have taken it unless they intended to eliminate or greatly reduce the jury award. I have little doubt that Exxon has spent several hundred thousands (at least) lobbying the Court, and its staff, for a favorable outcome before today's arguments. This was just for show today.

John W, Isn't having an alcoholic captain in command of a huge oil tanker outrageous? Maybe you're right and this Supreme Court will surprise us. I think it's more likely that they'll waive the damage award and require the fishermen to reimburse the original $3.5 billion.

SteveB:

Deciding to grant certiorari (thus taking the case) does not invariably mean the Supreme Court is going to alter the result. The Court isn’t out to alter verdicts. It is out to decide important questions of public policy. The case had to raise such a question to even grab their attention. The Court could very well decide the case in a manner that fully sustains the punitive damages award.

Furthermore, parties do not “lobby” the Supreme Court or any court. Dealing with a court is vastly different from dealing with a legislator or government executive. Courts generally prohibit ex parte communications. That is to say, one party to a suit cannot meet with a member of a court in private to discuss a pending case unless all parties to the suit are present. If one party sends a letter or brief to the court, a copy of that document must be served on all other parties, and there must be a sworn “proof of service” to show it. This is to insure that everyone is fairly advised of all arguments being made so they can adequately respond to them. Furthermore, contact with staff members for the purpose of influencing the case is normally prohibited. All matters must be addressed to the court if at all.

* * * * *
Posted by: Tom O | February 28, 2008 8:41 AM

Having an alcoholic captain in command of a huge oil tanker could well be outrageous. I don’t know the answer. I must confess that I haven’t examined the issue well enough to satisfy even myself one way or another. But am I not sure this is the only question involved, or even one of the questions involved. The questions involved (for example) could be more like:

1. Does maritime law permit the award of punitive damages against a company for the negligent/reckless misconduct of one of its employees (in this case, the captain)? [Note that maritime law doesn’t work quite the same way as normal tort law; and there is precedent to deny a punitive damages award in these circumstances.]

2. Was there a sufficient or special relationship between the ship’s captain and Exxon to impute the captain’s outrageous behavior to Exxon even though his intoxication violated one of Exxon’s policies? [This is apparently one of the issues. It is important, in that intentional and outrageous behavior often defeats a claim of vicarious liability unless the tortuous behavior is part of the employee’s job.]

I don’t think the court will order the fishermen to pay anything back to Exxon regardless of the result. The compensatory damages award doesn’t seem to be in issue before the Supreme Court; only the punitive damages award. And the punitive damages award (apparently) hasn’t been paid. So, whatever the fishermen got is theirs to keep.

John W.,

Maybe I should introduce myself. I’m Lisa, born and raised on Kodiak Island. The oil spill happened when I was 19. I’m now 38. I have seen first hand exactly how much damage was done to the people, the environment, the industries and communities of Alaska. I spent my teenage years working canneries during the summers. For a period of time, everyone I knew was in the fishing industry or one of its support services. The island I grew up on was thriving and it was a happy childhood. But by the time I was in my mid-20’s, all of that had changed. I was working in social services on Kodiak Island and experienced first hand the emotional and economical damage. Men that were my father’s age, men I had looked up to and admired my whole life, were sitting in front of me and couldn’t even look me in the eyes as they requested just enough money to pay the heating bill that month – or the rent - after they’d lost their homes, boats, cars, permits and in some cases, their families. These were men trapped in a place where it was hard to turn around. There are approximately 33,000 of them. About 8,000 have died penniless waiting for Exxon to pay.

Now many reading this will say Exxon is not responsible. I say Exxon should be ashamed to so openly display a greater concern for profit than people. Of course Exxon is responsible.

A good corporation is like a good leader – you must do the right thing. Exxon would be admired and respected today if it had done the right thing. Instead, Exxon looks for loopholes and begs the courts to hear their pleas and drown out the pleas of 33,000 others who are truly suffering. Exxon isn’t suffering at all.

The fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear them at all is very troubling.

So John W., why don't you introduce yourself and explain to me why this is so important to you?

Lisa:

I am a 50 year old lawyer. I have spent most of my adult life defending poor people against big, bad arbitrary governments. Thus, I am interested in everything the U.S. Supreme Court does.

I actually lived in Alaska during my second year of life. That’s because I was an Army Brat. My father was stationed in Whittier, Alaska and put in charge of a large boat. [Go figure.] A lot of people don’t recall early parts of their childhood, but I remember my time in Alaska. It is the part of my childhood that I recall most vividly.

I sympathize with the people in Alaska who have been harmed. Yet, I have not taken sides with anyone in this case because I don't know all the facts or the exact legal issues presented. There is a lot of material to read to get a good feel for it. What I do know is that Exxon is not trying to get out from its responsibility for compensating people for the damages caused. They are only challenging the “punitive damages” award – which, as the name implies, was the part of the verdict designed to punish them. That is separate from the part of the verdict that awards compensation.

I realize that the decision of the Supreme Court to hear the case is disturbing. Yet, I do not believe it is appropriate to vilify the Supreme Court before it has rendered a decision. It’s decision to hear the case does not necessarily mean that it plans to let Exxon off the hook. Sometimes the Court decides to take cases to resolve important questions of nationwide importance. It also takes cases to resolve conflicts among the decision of the lower federal courts in order to insure the uniform application of the law. In this case, Exxon petitioned to the Supreme Court claiming that the award of punitive damages under maritime law conflicted with the decisions of other federal appellate courts. Apparently, that was a good enough reason to hear the case.

The Court could very well affirm the verdict in its entirety. If they did, then the rule of law that allows punitive damages against Exxon could not only be used in future Exxon-Valdez type disasters, all federal courts would actually be required to apply that rule. In the alternative, the Court could modify the rule of law in a manner that could require modification of the award, or even a retrial on the issue of punitive damages (but not the compensatory damages). Another possible result in this case – since one of the Justices excused himself from hearing the case – is that the Court could come to a 4-4 split. In such a case, the Court would simply have to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment on the punitive damages award, and that would be the end of it.

There are a lot of possible results in this case, and some of them could actually favor the injured parties in and about Alaska. That is why I said your ire at the Supreme Court is premature. The Supreme Court didn’t start the problem by piloting the Exxon-Valdez onto the Bligh Reef, but it will likely finish this case once and for all. You should try giving it a chance to do its job without expecting the worst.

John W:

Sorry, but just call me a cynic. In an ideal world, the Court would work the way you suggest as far as lobbying goes. However, I don't believe for a second, with 4.5 billion on the table (counting interest), Exxon just twiddled their thumbs while their lawyers worked on oral arguments, and wished "gee I hope those guys are fair to us". They've been working it, in what ever way they can, legal or not, to influence the Courts decision in a way favorable to them. Its probably what got the Court to take the case in the first place, when prevailing legal opinion on the "street" was that they wouldn't. My sense is the Court will either greatly reduce the award, throw it out, or worse, remand it back to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration. I guess we'll find out in July who is right. I'm happy to come back here and eat crow if it comes out different. Maybe I'll even believe in the legal system again.

* * * * *
Posted by: Steve B | February 29, 2008 1:14 AM

For starters, the amount on the table is $2.5 billion, and not 4.5 billion.

In the second place, courts really do work the way I said they do. A party to a suit (and its lawyer(s)) could get into some serious hot water for trying to get as cozy with the court as you suggest Exxon has.

Might I remind you (also) that Justice Alito disqualified himself from the case because he owns stock in Exxon? It seems to me that the Court is on high alert to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. That’s why I don’t believe Exxon has had the ability to cozy up to the Court.

Third, regardless of the prevailing legal views on the street, Exxon’s petition did state valid legal grounds to get a hearing. The Supreme Court’s rules specify that a conflict among lower federal appellate courts on an issue of federal law is a reason to grant certiorari. Exxon asserted that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling regarding punitive damages conflicted with the decision in four or five other Circuits. The “street” apparently guessed wrong.

John W:

Exxon was required to post a bond--rate was 6% I believe--in 1994 pending appeal of the jury award. The amount I referred to is the 2.5 billion plus interest, which estimates put at 1.8 to 2.0 billion depending on when (or if) Exxon ever actually pays a punitive damage award. That's where my number I posted comes from.

I can think of a myriad of ways to effectively lobby a member of the Court, and if I were Exxon, and I would have done it long before the Court took the case in October. I submit from their perspective, there is too much on the table not to. They certainly have the money and access in DC. Can I be sure...no, of course not, but it would boggle my mind if they hadn't made the effort.

I've enjoyed our exchange, and recognize you are an attorney and support your profession. I hope the Court does indeed operate in the pure manner you describe. I'm just a little jaded on that concept. Regards, Steve

John W:

The board moderator didn't post my earlier reply, but the 4.5 billion number is the 2.5 judgment, plus interest since 1994. That figure is 1.8-2.0 billion plus or minus. There is 4.5 billion, or so, on the table.

There are a myriad of ways a company like Exxon could effectively lobby the Court. And certainly it would be an effort that would have started long before the Court agreed to take the case in October. Such an effort is based on the web of personal contacts and relationships a company like Exxon has in DC, and has little to do with their attorneys putting the arm on a staffer at the Court. People, even judges, are subject to influence, which is why lobbying is such a big business in DC. Exxon has the money and access to influence decision makers, in any branch of government, that only very few have.

I read somewhere that the Court considered about 300 petitions in October, and accepted two--Exxon's, and one other. Maybe they had a really great legal argument for the Court to consider, and that was it, but I'd guess it was more than just that. I don't believe the Court operates in a manner as pure as your view holds. I'm not an attorney, just an interested observer, and deeply cynical about this case, and its twists through the legal system.

to john w.,the $ amount is 4.5 bil including interest and it is interesting to note that the state of alaska settled their issues cheaply and early in this mess to make way for the punitive trial to move forward quickly,obviously a bad move but at the time i think most of us thought with a little push exxon would do the right thing with respect to punitives,also a mistake.the money that exxon claims to have spent on cleanup (3.4)was in large part paid for by insurers so exxon has really gotten off easy up to this point and ithink most likley will prevail and then what about justice