You point out that BP is a sophisticated party with access to attorneys. But the “no need for proof of causation” was written into the settlement to help little guys affected by the spill get more relief earlier as requested by the powerfully lawyer-ed to the hilt government of the United States. As it happened, the US government caused far more damage by its politically driven moratorium on drilling than the spill itself caused.

Sure. Try this.

At common law, “causation” is an element of a tort claim. We all understand the customary standard of causation: something that a defendant did or failed to do caused or contributed to, in a reasonably certain chain of events, the losses or damages being claimed by the plaintiff.

In this case, BP, which we will all agree is a highly sophisticated party with access to the best lawyers in the world, agrees to a different definition of “causation” to be applied in these claims. It does so not out of some corporate largesse or newfound philanthropic world view (depsite the very well done “We care about the Gulf Coast” commercials) but out of that which motivates all sophisticated corporate entities – its own financial self interest. It decides, presumably, that paying claims based on a formula that concedes the causation element if the financial test is satisfied will be cheaper in the long run than litigating causation with thousands of plaintiffs. And oh, by the way, if that also produces some goodwill as a side effect, that’s a benefit to BP too.

If the common law causation test were in effect, then I would agree that a claim asserted in the absence of that more traditional causation would pose an ethical dilemma. But that is not the “causation” that applies here, because BP in a negotiated and court approved settlement agreed to something else. I have no ethical or moral quibble with anyone who meets the new “causation” standard that does apply here – the one BP agreed to – and then submits a claim, even if that claimant wouldnot otherwise meet the traditional common law standard of causation.

There . . . how’s that?

But that has nothing to do with the settlement itself. In fact, BP agreed to a settlement that does not require any “proof,” at least not in the ordinary sense, of any losses attributable to the spill. In lieu of such proof, BP agreed to a formula (a series of formulas actually, depending on the business location) that determines entitlement to compensation based solely on an analysis of the businesses financial records for designated time periods before and after the spill. If that comparison shows a “loss” under the agreed formula, the claim is payable.

And yes, the claims agents and firms are aggressively pursuing claims because they get a share of any amounts paid.

But BP agreed to this settlement formula, based on the presumably informed decision that it made more financial sense for them than to fight every possible claim and the class actions that would and did ensue. If BP elected to waive the proof of causation that would othrwise be required, it is difficult for me to fault anybody, legally or ethically, for submitting a claim irrespective of any “damage” from teh spill in the traditional sense. BP has invited claims based on a formula to which it agreed, and the formula requires only that the financial data meet a certain test.

Whetehr that turns out ot be a good deal or a bad deal for BP remains to be seen, but it was certainly a well-informed decision by them. That isn’t fraud or a scam or anybody stealing government money . . . it’s just the settlement that the parties agreed to.

Last year I received a phone call from a family member who works for a plaintiff’s attorney here in southern Louisiana. He invited me to apply for BP compensation. I told him that I was not injured by the oil spill, and suffered no loss at all. In fact, at the time of the spill, I was residing out of state.

He said that didn’t matter. “This is all about BP wanting to spread goodwill money around Louisiana,” he said.

I thought that was lawyer bullshit, and ended the conversation. Turns out he called everybody in our family, trying to get us onto the compensation bandwagon, but we all refused to have anything to do with it. I don’t feel sorry for BP, but damn, that’s some dirty business.