I find the public comments quite interesting that people expect to be taken care of by this program and retain their right to sue.
If i rearended them in an auto accident, they have the option of taking a settlement from the insurance company or suing to try to get more from me.
I see this BP situation as being no different from that, other than the scale of the accident.
You almost have to wonder if the legal community isn’t out there trying to drive some of this to creatwe work for themselves, so they can have a piece of the pie.
The issue that I have not settled on yet is the idea that if you worked the cleanup, that gets deducted from your settlement. Perhaps i see the point that you would not be getting paid by them if that had not happened, therefore the clean up pay is tied to your overall compensation. But I am still not comfortable with that idea.
I look forward to hearing other ideas on this that don’t turn into rants on Bush or Obama.
Anyone that has had experience with “business interruption” claims will know that “loss of income” and extra expense are difficult to quantify unless there is a credible professional profit/loss statement available. Unfortunately, that experience will show that those reports do not always reflect what revenues really were received. Sometimes there are two sets of books, the one shown for tax purposes to the government and the real one. The BP compensation will likely be related to the one submitted for tax purposes. If the “real” one is used, somebody will might end up in big trouble for tax evasion and fraud.
There are two sets of logic to deducting monies earned while employed from a cleanup from an eventual loss of business suit. The first is; being paid for adays work is just that wages for efforts expended. That should have nothing to do with offsetting any suit, as BP would hve to pay someone to do the cleanup. The other argument is that the basis of the claim is compensation for lost business income. Well if I (BP)am supplying you with an income you wouldn’t have had if your business wasn’t interrupted than that should count as part of your lost income and therefore deducted from the settlement amount.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I find the public comments quite interesting that people expect to be taken care of by this program and retain their right to sue.
If i rearended them in an auto accident, they have the option of taking a settlement from the insurance company or suing to try to get more from me.
I see this BP situation as being no different from that, other than the scale of the accident.
You almost have to wonder if the legal community isn’t out there trying to drive some of this to creatwe work for themselves, so they can have a piece of the pie.
The issue that I have not settled on yet is the idea that if you worked the cleanup, that gets deducted from your settlement. Perhaps i see the point that you would not be getting paid by them if that had not happened, therefore the clean up pay is tied to your overall compensation. But I am still not comfortable with that idea.
I look forward to hearing other ideas on this that don’t turn into rants on Bush or Obama.
Anyone that has had experience with “business interruption” claims will know that “loss of income” and extra expense are difficult to quantify unless there is a credible professional profit/loss statement available. Unfortunately, that experience will show that those reports do not always reflect what revenues really were received. Sometimes there are two sets of books, the one shown for tax purposes to the government and the real one. The BP compensation will likely be related to the one submitted for tax purposes. If the “real” one is used, somebody will might end up in big trouble for tax evasion and fraud.
There are two sets of logic to deducting monies earned while employed from a cleanup from an eventual loss of business suit. The first is; being paid for adays work is just that wages for efforts expended. That should have nothing to do with offsetting any suit, as BP would hve to pay someone to do the cleanup. The other argument is that the basis of the claim is compensation for lost business income. Well if I (BP)am supplying you with an income you wouldn’t have had if your business wasn’t interrupted than that should count as part of your lost income and therefore deducted from the settlement amount.