US HIGH COURT TO DECIDE EXXON MOBIL VALDEZ APPEAL
10.30.07 - Leído 101 veces. Enviar esta notaJames Vicini
The Supreme Court said Monday it would hear Exxon Mobil Corp’s appeal seeking to overturn the US$2.5 billion in punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska
WASHINGTON, US; October 30, 2007.- The justices agreed to review a ruling by a US appeals court that awarded record punitive damages to about 32,000 commercial fishermen, Alaska natives, property owners and others harmed by the nation’s worst tanker spill.
The high court rejected a separate appeal by the plaintiffs seeking to reinstate the jury’s original award of US$5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon Mobil.
The Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in March 1989, spilling about 11 million gallons of crude oil.
The spill spread oil to more than 1,200 miles of coastline, closed fisheries and killed thousands of marine mammals and hundreds of thousands of sea birds.
A federal jury in Alaska awarded US$5 billion in punitive damages in 1994. A federal judge later reduced it to US$4.5 billion. A US appeals court in December further cut the amount to US$2.5 billion.
Exxon Mobil, the largest US company by market capitalization, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the US$2.5 billion award still was too high.
Company lawyers called it the largest punitive damage award ever affirmed by a federal appellate court, larger than the total of all punitive damage awards upheld by federal appellate courts in US history.
The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the award violated federal maritime law. It refused to decide another argument by the company that the award violated the constitutional right to due process.
Exxon Mobil said it welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal.
EXXON: NO PUNITIVE DAMAGES WARRANTED
It said it already has spent more than US$3.5 billion for compensatory and cleanup payments, settlements and fines. “We do not believe any punitive damages are warranted in this case,” it said in a statement.
“It is also important for the Supreme Court to uphold long-standing maritime law that provides that ship-owners are not liable for punitive damages based upon conduct by the ship-master who disregarded the owner’s rules and policies,” the oil company said.
Sue Johnson, president of the tribal council in Tatitlek, the tiny Native Alutiiq village in Prince William Sound, said the news from the Supreme Court caused disappointment.
“It was a big letdown, a big stress because of the financial state of our village,” Johnson said. “The spill is still affecting us here.”
Herring and shellfish have largely disappeared, and the values of commercial permits have fallen so low that many villagers have relinquished them, she said. “Our little ones, they’re the ones that are paying for all of this. They’re not able to go down to the beach and dig clams like they used to.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs opposed Exxon Mobil’s appeal.
They disputed the company’s argument that the award was too high and said the US$2.5 billion judgment represented a little more than three weeks of Exxon Mobil’s current net profits.
“After 18 years of litigation, Exxon now seeks additional review from this court and relief that could prolong the case for many years to come,” David Oesting, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told the justices.
While Exxon’s challenges have been pending since the jury’s verdict, about 20 percent of the plaintiff class members have died, he said.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case most likely in February, with a ruling expected by the end of June.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case. He gave no explanation, but such recusals typically happen when a justice owns stock in a company in a case before the court.
Alito’s recusal means that only eight members of the court will hear the case. If the justices end up being split by a 4-4 vote, then the appeals court’s ruling against Exxon Mobil would be affirmed. (Additional reporting by Michael Erman in New York and Yereth Rosen in Anchorage)
(Reuters)
Enlaces Relacionados
