- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,776
- 31
- 81
It has been over 18 years since Exxon spilled some 11 million gallons of crude in Prince William Sound, Alaska. And yet Exxon has still NOT paid punitive damages for the tragedy.
Think of that next time you see one of their "pro-environment" TV ads.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
In 1994, in the case of Baker vs. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was based on a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.
Exxon appealed the ruling and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive.
Exxon appealed again, sending the case back to court to be considered in regard to a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.
After more appeals, and oral arguments heard by the 9th Circuit Appellate Court on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006.[10] The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.
Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Exxon Mobil Corp.'s request for another hearing, letting stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon's only further option for appeal is the U.S. Supreme Court. Exxon has said it will make this final appeal.
Exxon's official position is that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill, along with a further $1 billion to settle civil and criminal charges related to the case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company "put a drunk in charge of a tanker in Prince William Sound."[11]
Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims[12] and tax deductions for the loss of the Valdez.[13] Also, in 1991, Exxon made a separate financial settlement with a group of seafood producers known as the Seattle Seven for the disaster's impact on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75 million to the Seattle Seven but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages to Exxon.
Think of that next time you see one of their "pro-environment" TV ads.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
In 1994, in the case of Baker vs. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was based on a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.
Exxon appealed the ruling and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive.
Exxon appealed again, sending the case back to court to be considered in regard to a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.
After more appeals, and oral arguments heard by the 9th Circuit Appellate Court on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006.[10] The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.
Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Exxon Mobil Corp.'s request for another hearing, letting stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon's only further option for appeal is the U.S. Supreme Court. Exxon has said it will make this final appeal.
Exxon's official position is that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill, along with a further $1 billion to settle civil and criminal charges related to the case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company "put a drunk in charge of a tanker in Prince William Sound."[11]
Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims[12] and tax deductions for the loss of the Valdez.[13] Also, in 1991, Exxon made a separate financial settlement with a group of seafood producers known as the Seattle Seven for the disaster's impact on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75 million to the Seattle Seven but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages to Exxon.
Facebook
Twitter