Alaska Fishing Town Braces for Court Look at Exxon Valdez Spill
National News • February 27, 2008
For many in the coastal town of Cordova, Alaska, the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster was an event so crushing that hard-bitten fishermen still get teary-eyed recalling ruined livelihoods, broken ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: How much have they got?
Posted On: February 28, 2008, 10:12 am CST
Posted By: Errrr?
Comment:
As for your comment "If they have already received a lot of money, then the only reason I can see for awarding the damages would be to send a message to other oil / heavy industry companies which are prone to these sort of accidents." What do you think "punitive damages" are for?
Definition: "…are those with the intent to punish the defendant. The hope is that awarding punitive damages will deter similar actions in the future both by the defendant ."
Exxon maintains that punitive damages would be excessive punishment it already has paid.
This coming from a company that reported a – $40.6 billion PROFIT in 2007 alone??? Neither economic nor environmental damages from this sort of disaster will simply go away after a couple of years - and I doubt these people will receive much of anything until this is finally settled simply because once you give the $$ you can't take it back if in fact the courts overturn the decision.
The 2.5 billion award out of a 40 billion 2007 profit is chump change - It's not like the Valdez was scuttled in a massive storm that caused the spill - it was pure negligence by an employee of the company - who therefore should be held accountable for gross negligence.
Even if you dismiss the allegations whether Hazelwood was a drinker, drunk, or not - the spill was a direct cause of human error - it was avoidable by taking proper steps to prevent - it was not an "accident"
"Damages" include everything you are "legally liable" for from the day they occurred to the time at which the area is restored to pre-spill economic, social, environmental status - That's what insurance pays for - to restore or to make whole before the time of the loss.
The slap in the face with the Punitive Damages isn't something new or out of the blue - they're accepted fines in the legal system and put there for a reason, albeit in certain circumstances, they may be excessive. Like when you try to curl your hair while sitting in the tub and electrocute yourself...
However, Exxon is responsible for destroying an entire ecosystem as well as countless communities that rely on this area for their mere existence. Obviously, they're trying to send a message to these perceived "untouchables" that they -aren't- above the law – at least they're not supposed to be. (I would be interested to find out what the "post-judgment" interest tallies are to date)
Face it folks – Try and walk a mile in the shoes of these people and then ask yourself whether a company that is slitting the throats of every American citizen deserves any sympathy by hiding behind a bunch of whining overpaid CEO's who couldn't give a rats patootie about you or anyone else. If it were you, your family, your community how could someone express the same negativity in support of Exxon?
Subject: RE: How much have they got?
Definition: "…are those with the intent to punish the defendant. The hope is that awarding punitive damages will deter similar actions in the future both by the defendant ."
Exxon maintains that punitive damages would be excessive punishment it already has paid.
This coming from a company that reported a – $40.6 billion PROFIT in 2007 alone??? Neither economic nor environmental damages from this sort of disaster will simply go away after a couple of years - and I doubt these people will receive much of anything until this is finally settled simply because once you give the $$ you can't take it back if in fact the courts overturn the decision.
The 2.5 billion award out of a 40 billion 2007 profit is chump change - It's not like the Valdez was scuttled in a massive storm that caused the spill - it was pure negligence by an employee of the company - who therefore should be held accountable for gross negligence.
Even if you dismiss the allegations whether Hazelwood was a drinker, drunk, or not - the spill was a direct cause of human error - it was avoidable by taking proper steps to prevent - it was not an "accident"
"Damages" include everything you are "legally liable" for from the day they occurred to the time at which the area is restored to pre-spill economic, social, environmental status - That's what insurance pays for - to restore or to make whole before the time of the loss.
The slap in the face with the Punitive Damages isn't something new or out of the blue - they're accepted fines in the legal system and put there for a reason, albeit in certain circumstances, they may be excessive. Like when you try to curl your hair while sitting in the tub and electrocute yourself...
However, Exxon is responsible for destroying an entire ecosystem as well as countless communities that rely on this area for their mere existence. Obviously, they're trying to send a message to these perceived "untouchables" that they -aren't- above the law – at least they're not supposed to be. (I would be interested to find out what the "post-judgment" interest tallies are to date)
Face it folks – Try and walk a mile in the shoes of these people and then ask yourself whether a company that is slitting the throats of every American citizen deserves any sympathy by hiding behind a bunch of whining overpaid CEO's who couldn't give a rats patootie about you or anyone else. If it were you, your family, your community how could someone express the same negativity in support of Exxon?