FOLLOW US

Louisiana residents who filed lawsuits against their lawyers alleging mishandled claims for damages in connection with the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill have requested that the Fifth Circuit give a rehearing to them. And the plaintiffs are seeking to revive a settlement agreement that was nullified by an appellate court panel, and they're accusing their attorneys of bungling claims related to the disaster. The plaintiffs took the case to the Fifth Circuit on Monday after a district court axed an earlier settlement. That argument is based on whether a global settlement agreement was reached or not and the plaintiffs claim their attorneys as well as insurance companies failed to file certain claims after losing out compensation from the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claim Program.

BP Spill Malpractice Revival Request : A Settlement Dispute

The legal malpractice suits were filed as early as May 2019, accusing attorneys of inflating and pressuring settlements to the point that Floyd wrongfully forfeited money she was due. The litigation was then centralized in the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and assigned to Judge Wendy B. Vitter, also a federal judge. By December 2022, the conversations during negotiations to settle it with U.S. Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld we're happening in efforts avoid a trial scheduled for May 2023. It was dismantle included a separate bathroom ifa mediation proposal came in after the first set of talks failed leading to an announcement that something had been worked out around january 8, 2023. That settlement, however, was challenged as invalid when a panel of three judges from the Fifth Circuit found in August 2023 that there actually is no enforceable deal because it wasn't put into writing.

Plaintiffs Seek Rehearing

The plaintiffs said that all had agreed upon the basic terms as part of their petition for rehearing en banc, or by a larger panel of judges. They argue that the deal should have been carried out as all other stipulations, including an audit of Maxum Indemnity Company policy limits had eventually come true. The plaintiffs had claimed Maxum could not agree to the settlement until it verified eroding policy limits were still available, and they say that condition was met -- so now the parties should be bound by terms of their agreement. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit had sided with Maxum and other defendants, saying there was "no enforceable settlement" because the plaintiffs' counteroffer had never been accepted by a named party. The plaintiffs claim the panel misunderstood key facts, and in any event not all defendants have even appealed the settlement — further validation of its legitimacy.

BP Spill Malpractice Revival Request : Insurers and Lawyers Respond

However, Maxum Indemnity Company and attorney defendants such as Howard L. Nations and Cindy Nations have denied that any settlement was reached with calls for a repleading under defense accusations of incomplete financial information at the time negotiations took place. They contend that pushing the settlement process could spawn more suits from these plaintiffs.